Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KINGSTON UPON HULL CORPORATION (DEVELOPMENT, ETC.) BILL. [By Order.]

Second Reading deferred till the First Sitting Day after 2nd April.

Oral Answers to Questions — I.L.O. CONFERENCE, UNITED STATES (BRITISH DELEGATION)

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour the names of the delegates from this country to the forthcoming I.L.O. Conference at Philadelphia.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I am arranging to circulate a list in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There may possibly be one or two other advisers to be added.

Mr. Davies: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the total number of delegates; and is he satisfied that Great Britain will be adequately represented at this important Conference?

Mr. Bevin: Great Britain will be adequately represented, but I have not the exact figures in my head.

Mr. Thorne: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the total number of delegates to be sent by the Government?

Following is the list:

GOVERNMENT DELEGATES.

Mr. George Tomlinson, M.P., Joint Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Labour and National Service.
Sir Frederick William Leggett, C.B., Joint Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Labour and National Service, Member of the Governing Body of the International Labour Office.

Substitute Delegates and Advisers.

Mr. Thomas Ingram Kynaston Lloyd, C.M.G., Assistant Under-Secretary of State, Colonial Office.
Mr. Guildhaume Myrddin-Evans, Under-Secretary, Ministry of Labour and National Service.

Advisers.

Mr. Percy Young Blundun, Principal Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Labour and National Service.
Mr. George Alexander Johnston, Assistant Secretary, Ministry of Labour and National Service.
Mr. Alfred George Victor Lindon, Industrial Adviser to the Government of Trinidad.
U Kyaw Min, I.C.S., Joint Secretary to the Government of Burma, Reconstruction Department.
Major Granville St. John Orde-Brown, C.M.G., O.B.E., Labour Adviser to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
Mr. Harold Frederick Oxbury, I.C.S., Joint Secretary to the Government of Burma, Reconstruction Department.
Miss Muriel Ritson, C.B.E., Controller of Insurance and Pensions, Department of Health for Scotland.

EMPLOYERS' DELEGATE.

Sir John Forbes Watson, Director of the British Employers' Confederation, Member of the Governing Body of the International Labour Office.

Advisers.

Mr. Thomas Ashurst, Director of the Cotton Spinners' and Manufacturers' Association, Member of the General Purposes Committee and Council of the British Employers' Confederation.
Mr. Harold Stewart Kirkaldy, General Secretary of the Iron and Steel Trades Employers' Association, Member of the Council of the British Employers' Confederation.
Mr. Alexander Collie Low, Secretary of the Engineering and Allied Employers' National Federation, Member of the Council of the British Employers' Confederation.
Mr. Cecil Walter Murray, D.F.C.; M.I.Mech.E., Managing Director, Messrs. George Fletcher and Co., Ltd., Masson Works, Derby, Employers' Member of the Colonial Labour Advisory Committee.

WORKERS' DELEGATE.

Mr. Joseph Hallsworth, General Secretary of the National Union of Distributive and Allied Workers, Member of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, Member of the Governing Body of the International Labour Office.

Advisers.

Mr. John Brown, General Secretary of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, Member of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress.
Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Citrine, K.B.E., General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress, President of the International Federation of Trade Unions.
Mr. E. E. Esua, General Secretary of the Nigerian Union of Teachers.
Miss Florence Hancock, O.B.E., National Woman Officer of the Transport and General Workers' Union, Member of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress.


Dame Anne Loughlin, D.B.E., Chief Woman Officer of the National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers, Vice-President of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress.
Mr. George Thomson, Officer of the Association of Engineering and Shipbuilding Draughtsmen, Member of the General Council of the Trades Union Congress.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

Eire Workers (United Kingdom)

Sir Ralph Glyn: asked the Minister of Labour what is the approximate number of labourers from Eire who have had permits to enter the United Kingdom for work on airfields, camps and other war buildings; what are the conditions of their employment; what restrictions were imposed upon their returning on holiday to Ireland taking what knowledge they have with them; and how many are now employed and at what rates of pay.

Mr. Bevin: It would not be in the public interest to give the number of workers from Eire who have entered the United Kingdom and the number now engaged on the types of work indicated. The entrance of Eire workers into this country is, however, carefully controlled. The terms and conditions of employment, including rates of pay, are the same as those for other workers in similar employment. As regards return to Ireland the restrictions recently announced now apply to them. Previously, the maximum number of holiday visits permitted to Eire workers was two during a period of twelve months.

Mr. McGovern: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to believe that many of these workers carry back to Ireland information which is used against this country?

Mr. Bevin: That does not come within my purview at all.

British Red Cross Society (Administrative Officers)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Labour if he will issue the necessary instructions to permit members of the British Red Cross Society to be considered as doing essential war work for the purpose of employment, in view of the repeated appeals made by the Government for nurses and helpers in hospitals to undertake semi-medical work.

Mr. Bevin: I understand that my hon. Friend has in mind certain administrative officers of the British Red Cross Society. I could not agree that such officers should be automatically reserved; they must be called for interview so that their position may be determined in the usual way in the light of individual circumstances.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Minister give as much latitude as he can, because these public-spirited people cannot answer the appeals which the Government have made to them, unless their work is considered as essential?

Mr. Bevin: All that is taken into account at the interviews.

Coalmining (Compulsory Recruitment)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Labour whether in view of the recent court cases in which young men who sought service in the Armed Forces preferred prison to work in the coalmines, he will reconsider his declared policy on this question.

Mr. Bevin: I can only provide the labour required for the coalmines by sending to them a proportion of the young men reaching military age. Practically all those selected by ballot would prefer service in the Armed Forces, but have loyally accepted their direction to the mines; a mere handful have refused to comply and, in fairness to the others, I could not give them freedom to follow their own choice.

Sir T. Moore: Would my right hon. Friend not give special consideration, or make a special concession, to those young men or boys, who have devoted all their adolescent life to equipping themselves to fight for the country rather than to work for it?

Mr. R. J. Taylor: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are thousands in the mines now, who would prefer the Services?

Mr. Foster: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that this plan of sending youths into the mines at 18 years of age will never succeed, because you can never make them into miners by that process?

Mr. Bevin: I have three supplementary questions. In reply to the first, I can only repeat that I cannot make exceptions


here, any more than I can make exceptions when I have to take people who have trained for the Navy and divert them to the Army or to some other function in the Services. In regard to the other questions, unless I take steps to put younger men in the mines, as I am doing, the age distribution, due as a result of the ageing of the people in the mines, will get entirely out of gear. I must feed the mining labour force with these younger men for the duration of the war.

Mr. Shinwell: While my right hon. Friend appears to have adopted the correct procedure generally, as to making no exceptions, does he not realise that recent events have shown that there are some pathological cases where exceptional treatment may be required? Will he not exercise discretion in such cases?

Mr. Bevin: That is done, even to the extent of allowing a psychiatrist to come in sometimes.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is the Minister aware that the majority of what are termed in the mining areas the "Bevin boys" swear that they will not stop in the pits a day longer than they are bound to do?

Mr. Bevin: I dare say my hon. Friend swore a lot of things when he was 18, but did not carry them out.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour whether, when directing to work in coalmines young men who have volunteered for the Armed Forces, he will try to give effect to any preference they may express for work in a colliery where discipline has been good.

Mr. Bevin: I have consulted my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Fuel and Power who is responsible for the allocation of the young men to particular collieries. His officers are always prepared to take account of an expressed preference for a particular colliery provided that labour is required underground at the colliery in question, and other circumstances make it practicable.

Mr. Astor: asked the Minister of Labour under what conditions trained cadets in the Cadet Corps, Sea Cadets and A.T.C., respectively, are exempted from the mine ballot.

Mr. Bevin: As I stated in the House on 2nd December last, the only exceptions from the coalmining ballot are: (1) men accepted for flying duties in the R.A.F. or Fleet Air Arm; (2) men accepted as artificers in submarines; (3) men in a short list of highly skilled occupations who are called up only for certain service trades and are not even accepted as volunteers for coalmining. Cadets as such are not excluded from the ballot.

Mr. Astor: Is the Minister sure that Army cadets have equal opportunities of going into the Services, with those who have been in the A.T.C. or Sea Cadet Corps?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. They are all treated alike, but it depends upon whether they come into the special categories.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour the number of youths admitted to the training centres; the number who have already commenced work at the coal mines; and if he can give these particulars for the various areas.

Mr. Bevin: I am having this information collected and will, if I may, arrange for it to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Industrial Consultations

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour if he will issue a new statement on the need for the maximum consultations and explanations to be made in industry to all representative interests.

M. Bevin: It is very desirable that changes in war requirements which affect production and re-allocation of labour should be clearly understood by those directly concerned and it has been the policy of the Government to encourage to the maximum joint consultation between managements and workpeople's representatives on these and other matters.

Mr. Smith: In view of the large switch over from the manufacture of one class of equipment to another, and in view of our changed strategical needs, will my right hon. Friend consider calling together all the Ministers involved in order that explanations can be made with a view to avoiding industrial unrest?

Mr. Bevis: I transferred 690,000 people last year, owing to the switch over of production, without a single dispute. I cannot imagine that the machinery is not working.

Mr. Smith: That is so, but there is a certain amount of unnecessary unrest, which could be avoided if full explanations were given. In view of the need to minimise that, will my right hon. Friend consider the suggestion that has been made?

Mr. Bevin: I certainly will consider the suggestion, but it would be more helpful to me if I could be told of works where it is not being done. Then I could deal with the matter.

Small Shopkeepers

Mr. Erskine-Hill: asked the Minister of Labour whether he can give any relief in the call up of, or direction to, vital war work of small shopkeepers, where the effect of calling up or direction will involve the closing down of a shop or business?

Mr. Bevin: At the present time when every available man and woman is required either for the Forces or for vital war work I cannot put any general stop on the calling up or direction to such work of the persons to whom my hon. and learned Friend refers. I have no evidence that the principles and procedure followed, which are well-known to hon. Members, are not adequate to deal with cases of exceptional hardship amongst small shopkeepers, but if my hon. and learned Friend has any particular case in mind where he feels that exceptional hardship has occurred I shall be glad to look into it.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: Is my night hon. Friend aware that there is a growing feeling in the country that the small man is being more and more handicapped, compared with some of the multiple concerns and the co-operative societies?

Mr. Keeling: Is not the statement the right hon. Gentleman has just made inconsistent with that made by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry a few months ago that one-man businesses were not to be closed?

Mr. Bevin: With regard to the first question, I really cannot act on what is

alleged to be general feeling. It crops up week by week, and if I were influenced by it, I should generally be wrong. If my hon. and learned Friend can snow to me that any action I am taking is treating this class of people unjustly, compared either with the co-operative societies or the other multiple concerns, no one will be more anxious than myself to look into it, because I am particularly careful to try to be fair between these classes. With regard to the second question, which suggested that I have differed from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, I do not think the quotation of my hon. Friend is quite correct. In any case, there is never any inconsistency between the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and myself.

Mr. Erskine-Hill: I beg to give notice that owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall take an early opportunity to raise the matter again.

Lorry Driver, Brandon Colliery

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Labour, if he is aware that a coal lorry has been standing idle at Miss Humphrey's Brandon Colliery, County Durham, since 26th February owing to the driver being called up for the Services; and if he will take steps to replace this driver as a considerable amount of coal has already been lost to the country.

Mr. Bevin: Urgent action has been taken by my officers to fill this vacancy. Two submissions have already been made to the employer without success, and a third man is at present under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRICK-MAKING INDUSTRY (WAGES)

Sir R. Glyn: asked the Minister of Labour what has been the percentage increase in wages paid in the brick manufacturing industry since 1939.

Mr. Bevin: The available statistics are given in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for February, 1944, a copy of which is in the Library.

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE (MEDICAL EXAMINATION)

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Minister of Labour what was the average delay between medical examination and call-up in


the case of the men who were discharged from the Army during 1943 with less than six months' service.

Mr. Bevin: I regret that to obtain this information would involve a disproportionate amount of time and labour. The normal interval between medical examination and calling up is not more than six to eight weeks. In special circumstances this interval may be longer but instructions are now in force providing that no man shall be called up who has not been medically examined or re-examined within the preceding sax months.

Mr. Bellenger: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the health of men in a lower category than A.1 may well deteriorate within a period of six months, before they are called up? Could he not arrange for a special re-examination nearer to the time of call-up?

Mr. Bevin: I will consider that.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICE CANTEENS (WAGES BOARD)

Mr. Hewlett: asked the Minister of Labour whether and how staffs at service canteens come under the operations of the Catering Wages Board.

Mr. Bevin: I assume that my hon. Friend has in mind the Wages Board to be set up under the Wages Board (Industrial and Staff Canteen Undertakings) Order, 1944, which I recently made. The Catering Wages Commission did not contemplate that canteens carried on for the use of members of His Majesty's Forces should for the present come within the scope of the Industrial and Staff Canteens Wages Board. The Commission have still under consideration the question whether such canteens should be brought within the scope of any Wages Board which they may recommend.

Oral Answers to Questions — COTTON INDUSTRY (SCHOOL-LEAVERS)

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Labour how many school-leavers entered the spinning and weaving sections, respectively, of the cotton industry during January and February, 1944.

Mr. Bevin: Figures relating specifically to school-leavers are not available. Of

those juveniles aged 14 and 15 years, however, whose first insurable employment began during those two months, approximately 620 took up employment in the preparing and spinning section of the cotton industry, and approximately 450 in the weaving section.

Mr. Burke: Will those figures meet the need of the employers for labour?

Mr. Bevin: I should not think so.

Oral Answers to Questions — ASSOCIATION OF EDUCATION COMMITTEES (RESOLUTION)

Lieutenant-Colonel Marlowe: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has considered the resolutions of the recent meeting of the Association of Education Committees; whether he is aware that when the Brighton resolution, which was supported by five other committees and not opposed, was being voted upon, a tactical device was employed by the Executive so as to prevent a vote being taken; and if he will take notice of this resolution as if it had been carried as it would have been if voting had been permitted.

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): I will take note of the hon. and gallant Member's request, but I cannot comment on the procedure to which he draws my attention.

Oral Answers to Questions — OLD AGE PENSIONS

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Health haw many supplementary pension cases have been re-assessed in the new conditions operating from 17th January; the number that have received increases; how many cases remain to be re-assessed; and when is it expected all will have been dealt with.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): The Assistance Board inform me that the review of supplementary pensions under the new regulations has now been completed. Full statistics are not available but it is estimated that about 94 per cent. of pensioners will, over the year as a whole, receive increases. In about 90 per cent., payments at increased rates will have been made by the end of the current week at the latest.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Rheumatism (Treatment)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the exceptional treatment for rheumatism available at Droitwich in the Midland region, adjacent to the large industrial population of the Midlands, he can now make some statement in connection with the proposals which have been forwarded to him for the setting up of a hospital centre for the treatment of rheumatism and allied complaints; and, in view of the site proposed, whether he will confer with the appropriate Department concerned.

Mr. Willink: At the present stage it would be premature to take the action suggested by my hon. Friend; but I can assure him that the treatment facilities of Droitwich will not be overlooked in considering future developments.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, from the national standpoint, there is very great need of a permanent cure for rheumatism and that at Droitwich there are, at the present time, great facilities which could be adapted to this purpose?

Mr. Willink: I can assure my hon. Friend that the question of rheumatism will be receiving the closest attention from my Department.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that many people go to Droitwich year after year and still do not get rid of their rheumatism?

Expectant Mothers

Mr. Astor: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the inadequacy of the existing facilities for evacuating expectant mothers from London; and what steps he intends to take to improve them.

Mr. Willink: No, Sir. The demand fluctuates considerably and temporary difficulty has occurred occasionally in times of special pressure. But I could not accept the suggestion that the existing facilities are generally inadequate. If my hon. Friend has any particular case in mind I will gladly look into the matter.

Mr. Astor: Is not my right hon. and learned Friend aware that since the resumption of raids on London, a great number of expectant mothers are trying

to evacuate to the country and there is no accommodation at present available for them? Medical officers in London are very worried about this subject. Cannot he do something about it?

Mr. Willink: Obviously, a resumption of raids would cause an increase in the amount of this type of evacuation, but on 14th March a general notification was sent to the London boroughs stating that registration for evacuation would now be reopened. There was, however, a temporary difficulty in February.

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that in many towns, such as Plymouth, there are still mothers who would like to get into the country?

Mr. Willink: There is, of course, difficulty, the main one being shortage of midwives.

26 and 27. Dr. Edith Summerskill: asked the Minister of Health (1) whether all the approved societies are in full agreement with Circular I.C.324 which prohibits the payment of benefit to expectant mothers in industry on grounds of advanced pregnancy;
(2) whether he will withdraw Circular I.C.324 and, by adjusting the National Health Insurance Reserve relating to women, give instructions that a pregnant woman in industry is eligible for benefit at least eight weeks before her confinement.

Mr. Willink: I have no reason to think that there is any general feeling amongst approved societies that the statement of the law as set out in Circular I.C.324 is incorrect. I have no power either by adjusting the National Health Insurance Reserve, as suggested by the hon. Member, or by any other administrtive action to alter the law in this matter; but should like to emphasise that where a doctor is satisfied that continuance at work would be prejudicial to the health of an expectant mother it is his duty to give a certificate of incapacity.

Dr. Surnmerskill: Is it not a fact that the Chairman of the Association of Approved Societies has made representations to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Department for years asking him to amend the existing Regulations?

Mr. Willink: I cannot answer that question.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider dealing with this problem of benefits for pregnant women apart from National Health Insurance, whose funds cannot stand this sort of benefit? Cannot he devise something in his new Bill based on the National Health Service?

Mr. Willink: Nothing is closer to my heart than the improvement of our maternity services, and such questions as have been put are under close consideration in connection with the whole field of social insurance and the health services.

National Health Service, Wales

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health if he will consider the desirability of treating Wales as a single region for the purposes of the National Health Service; and if he will bear in mind the fact that there is already one health service in Wales organised on that basis and that there is a Welsh Board of Health.

Mr. Willink: The whole question of the arrangements for the new service in Wales will need to be considered, when the appropriate time comes, with the local authorities and others concerned. I shall not overlook the factors to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Storey: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that North Wales looks to Liverpool for its hospital and consultant services and not pander for the parochial point of view expressed in the Question?

Mr. Griffiths: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that North and South Wales have had only one unified service for tuberculosis for many years, and that it has given general satisfaction?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Requisitioning, Middlesex

Mr. Hynd: asked the Minister of Health the number of houses or other premises requisitioned by each borough council in Middlesex under the powers given in his Circular 2845 of August, 1943, to provide accommodation for families inadequately housed.

Mr. Willink: The total is 342. I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL

REPORT the details for which my hon. Friend asks.

Following are the details:


Number of houses, or other premises, requisitioned for use under Circular No. 2845 by local authorities in Middlesex.


Local Authority.
No. of properties.


Acton
…
2


Brentford and Chiswick
…
63


Ealing
…
33


Edmonton
…
22


Enfield
…
9


Feltham
…
—


Finchley
…
14


Friern Barnet
…
2


Harrow
…
33


Hayes and Harlington
…
—


Hendon
…
40


Heston and Isleworth
…
4


Hornsey
…
2


Potters Bar
…
3


Ruislip-Northwood
…
15


Southall
…
11


Southgate
…
3


Staines
…
7


Sunbury-on-Thames
…
—


Tottenham
…
27


Twickenham
…
14


Uxbridge
…
5


Wembley
…
24


Willesden
…
—


Wood Green
…
5


Yiewsley and West Drayton
…
4


Total
…
342

Telephone Installation

Mr. Hynd: asked the Minister of Health whether, in plannning for new houses, he will consider the desirability of providing for telephone installation in every dwelling; and whether he will consult with the Postmaster-General in regard to the advantages and practicability of providing this amenity.

Mr. Willink: I am at present considering in consultation with my colleagues the advice to be given to local authorities regarding the planning and equipment of post-war dwellings and my hon. Friend's suggestion will be borne in mind. In considering all such suggestions we are, however, bound to take into account the effect of the extra expenditure on rents.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: In communicating with the local authorities, will the Minister deal with the difficulty that arises through enormous sums of money being paid in architectural and quantity surveyors' fees for work on quite a small number of houses? Cannot that expenditure and delay be avoided?

Mr. Willink: Architects' fees are often if not always well-earned but that is an entirely different question from the main Question, which deals with telephone installations.

Air-raid Victims (Accommodation)

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Health whether he will authorise local authorities to release empty houses, now being reserved in case of an emergency, when families who have already been bombed out are in urgent need of housing accommodation.

Mr. Willink: If my hon. Friend is referring to empty houses now reserved for the homeless, local authorities are already authorised to accommodate homeless families in them when the need arises.

Sir W. Smithers: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in South-Eastern London, which I know best, there is a great difficulty in finding houses, and the people for whom houses are supposed to be reserved—bombed-out families—cannot get accommodation anywhere?

Mr. Willink: Those who are rendered homeless by bombing are always at liberty to apply for the use of a house reserved for that purpose.

Sir W. Smithers: They may apply, but they are not granted houses.

Mr. Thorne: Has the Minister any power, where there are houses for sale and not to let, to compel people to let?

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir.

Prices

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Health whether his consultations with other Government Departments regarding the excessively high prices now being obtained for houses which change hands have yielded any result; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Willink: The consultations on this difficult matter will be completed shortly and I shall make an announcement as soon as possible.

Mr. Mathers: Is the Minister seized of the extreme importance and urgency of this matter?

Mr. Willink: I must await the report.

New Construction (Statistics)

Dr. Little: asked the Minister of Health the number of dwelling-houses at present being erected and how many have been commenced and completed since the outbreak of war in England and Wales, respectively; and the number of these houses erected in cities, provincial towns and rural areas, respectively.

Mr. Willink: As the answer involves a number of statistics I will, with permission, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

(1) Number of houses being erected under the Housing Acts on 31st March, 1943:



England
Wales


Boroughs and Urban Districts
8,358
188


Rural Districts
1,537
322



9,895
510

Information is not available regarding any houses being erected otherwise than under the Housing Acts.

(2) Number of houses completed between 1st August, 1939, and 31st March, 1943:



England
Wales


Boroughs and Urban Districts
110,165
4,631


Rural Districts
32,431
2,648



142,596
7,279

Local Authorities (Land Acquisition)

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Minister of Health what is the policy of his Department when a local authority, not wishing to build on unsuitable land which it owns, is anxious to acquire new and more suitable land; and whether all such applications for permission to buy are specially investigated before they are refused.

Mr. Willink: If I am satisfied that land owned by a local authority is unsuitable for housing purposes I am prepared to entertain proposals for the purchase of suitable land which the authority may require in order to carry out a two-year building programme. The answer to the second part of the Question is "Yes, Sir."

Mr. Sutcliffe: Will my right hon. and learned Friend allow local authorities in such cases greater freedom to select land


which they know to be most suitable for them? Great delay is being caused in some cases owing to the attitude of the Ministry.

Mr. Willink: If my hon. Friend will bring to my notice any case of unnecessary delay, I shall be most happy to look into it.

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether, pending further Government decisions on the Barlow, Scott and Uthwatt recommendations, he intends to give any guidance to local authorities about the selection of sites for houses.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): Yes, Sir. I have given, and shall continue to give, the necessary guidance to Planning Authorities through my Regional Planning Officers and otherwise, and my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Health, has instructed Housing Authorities to consult the Planning Authority and my Regional Planning Officer in every case.

Mr. Shinwell: When does the right hon. Gentleman hope to convey what is the Government's decision on these Reports to the House?

Mr. Morrison: This matter has been discussed in another place and I have nothing to add to what was said there yesterday.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that we are to await a discussion and a statement in another place before we hear from the representative of the Government in this Assembly what the Government's decision is?

Mr. Morrison: I did not intend to convey that at all. The real answer is that I have nothing to add to what I said on the matter last Thursday.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not a great pity that the Government have nothing to add on a very important matter of this sort? How long are they going to take before they reach a decision?

Mr. Mander: Does the right hon. Gentleman confirm the statement made in another place that the Government's declaration will be made after Easter, and does that mean Easter, 1944?

Mr. Morrison: I understand that the year referred to is 1944.

Viscountess Astor: Will the right hon. Gentleman resign unless his recommendations are carried out by the Government?

Mr. Morrison: I hope I shall be allowed to decide these personal questions myself. I ask the House to have the generosity to believe that I am not actuated by personal motives.

Mr. Maxton: Does the right hon. Gentleman remember that, when he took on this job, I said he would have a sticky time?

Mr. Morrison: I realised that myself, without the gipsy's warning.

DISABLED MEN (INVALID CHAIRS)

Mr. Oldfield: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will state the arrangements for the loan or issue of wheel chairs or tricycles to men who have suffered amputations or severe disablement to both lower limbs, whilst they are on indefinite leave pending discharge and after discharge from the forces; the time taken to effect delivery of tricycles after discharge; and the arrangements for the provision of motor attachments in approved cases.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): At each of the hospitals administered by my Department a supply of invalid chairs is maintained for issue on loan to patients who are in need of them when they are granted leave of absence from hospital or who are, following their discharge from the forces, awaiting the provision of a wheel chair or tricycle. Motor attachments in suitable cases are provided, on the recommendation of my medical officers by the British Red Cross Society. As regards the second part of the question I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for the City of Chester on the 9th March.

ARMED FORCES (PENSIONS AND GRANTS)

Major Nield: asked the Minister of Pensions, since the recent amendment of the Royal Warrant, how many applications for review have been made to his Department; in how many of such cases a pension has been granted by him without recourse to the appeals tribunals; how many such cases have been submitted to the appeals tribunals; and how many of such appeals have been allowed.

Sir W. Womersley: Up to 18th March the number of applications to my Department for review under the entitlement provisions announced in the White Paper in July last and embodied in the Royal Warrant of the 4th December, 1943, was rather more than 30,000, of which about 7,800 were admitted to pension without recourse to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal. The total number of appeals to the Tribunal is about 22,000 but my records do not distinguished the appellants who are also included in the 30,000 I have mentioned.

Mr. Tom Brown: asked the Minister of Pensions if, as over 50 per cent. of the parents of sons and daughters who have lost their lives in this war are not in receipt of any pensions and are experiencing considerable hardships, will he refer the question of a flat rate pension, irrespective of means, to the Central Advisory Committee for their consideration at an early date.

Sir W. Womersley: I do not accept the statement in the first part of the Question and I would remind my hon. Friend that it is open to any applicant in whose case pension was not awarded because the requirement of pecuniary need was not satisfied to renew the application in the event of an adverse change in financial circumstances. As regards the second part of the Question the Government made its position quite clear in the comprehensive discussion of war pensions on the issue of the White Paper in July last, and I see no grounds for referring the matter to my Central Advisory Committee.

Mr. Brown: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, when people have fallen on evil times, they refuse to submit their claims to the people concerned because of the inquisition applied to them?

Sir W. Womersley: No, I am not aware of that. The records of my Department show that these people apply at once and we deal with them sympathetically. There is no inquisition about it at all.

Mr. Maxton: What is it that the right hon. Gentleman does not accept? Is it the percentage?

Sir W. Womersley: I do not accept the inference in the Question at all.

Mr. Maxton: What inference is the right hon. Gentleman talking about? He said he did not accept the first part of the Question. The first part of the Question says

that over 50 per cent. of the parents do not get anything. Does he tell the House that is not true?

Sir W. Womersley: I gave figures last week which show that 50 per cent. were awarded pensions and 50 per cent. were given notice that they would have their entitlement to a pension as and when their pecuniary needs justified it. What I do not agree with is the statement that this system is causing some considerable hardship. It is doing nothing of the kind.

Mr. Lipson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, if 50 per cent. of the parents who have lost their sons are not receiving anything, it is a matter that calls for further consideration?

Sir W. Womersley: No, because these people have been given an insurance policy to put in their pocket which, to my mind, is far better than giving it to someone who is in a position to include it for purposes of Income Tax.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Famine Deaths, Bengal

Sir Stanley Reed: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he can give, on the basis of figures so far collected, the total excess in the number of deaths from all causes in the Presidency of Bengal for the year 1943, a period which would embrace the acute stage of the famine and the epidemics which accompanied it, over the average in normal years.

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): Yes, Sir. The Directorate of Public Health in Bengal have now compiled figures of deaths recorded in the Province in 1943. The recorded deaths from all causes total 1,873,749. This exceeds the average recorded mortality during the previous five years by 688,846. This figure roughly represents the number of deaths due to starvation, malnutrition impairing resistance to disease, as well as to abnormal epidemic diseases not associated with malnutrition. It is the approximate measure of the great economic disaster which afflicted Bengal last year. I am glad as all must be that the very much larger figures quoted in some quarters have turned out to be erroneous. But I must not be understood as in any way minimising the extent of an appalling calamity.

Wives (Travel Facilities)

38 and 39. Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: asked the Secretary of State for India (1) if he will consider a points system for wives who are anxious to join their husbands in India, calculated upon the length of separation;
(2) if he will give an assurance that wives of tea-planters and other civilians in India will receive the same treatment when passages to India are given as wives of people in Government service.

Mr. Amery: There are so many individual considerations besides length of separation which the committee, set up by the Government of India, will have to examine, that an automatic system of points calculated as my hon. and gallant Friend suggests, would hardly meet the requirements of the situation. Applications on behalf of wives of non-officials as well as of officials are being dealt with by the Committee and both classes will receive equal consideration. I would again emphasise that the number of passages to India available for women and children is very small indeed and so far as can be foreseen is likely to remain so for some time yet.

Sir W. Smiles: Will the Committee also give consideration to fiancées of men who are working in the East, some of whom have been engaged for more than five years?

Mr. Amery: I understand consideration is being given to every type of hardship.

Inflation (Preventive Measures)

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for India what measures are being taken or are contemplated by the Government of India to check and reduce inflation as envisaged in Lord Wavell's recent speech.

Mr. Amery: I cannot within the limits of a question and answer do justice to the very comprehensive programme of anti-inflationary measures which the Government of India have in hand. I propose to place in the Library as soon as possible copies of the Budget speech recently made by the Finance Member of the Government of India, which includes a full survey of the problem and of the Government of India's policy in relation to it. I am also sending a copy to my hon. Friend.

Grain Imports

Mr. Cocks: asked the Secretary of State for India how much grain has been and is being imported into India in the present year; and whether it is hoped to reach the total of 1,000,000 tons a year as recommended by the Gregory Report.

Mr. Amery: Substantial quantities of grain have been and are being shipped to India. I am not prepared to give details.

Mr. Cocks: Have the Government decided as a matter of long-term policy to adopt this target figure of 1,000,000 tons, as recommended by the Gregory Committee?

Mr. Amery: I am not prepared to give any detailed figures. Naturally, both the Government of India and His Majesty's Government must look to the future.

Mr. Cocks: Are the recommendations of the Committee accepted by the Government as their policy?

Mr. Amery: These recommendations will naturally be carefully considered.

Indian Speakers (Great Britain)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Indian propagandists for whom travelling facilities have been provided have included tendentious attacks on Indian political organisations in their lectures; and whether, in any broadcast talks or platform addresses, he will arrange that Indians with other points of view shall have the opportunity to refute criticisms and express their contrary viewpoint.

Mr. Amery: I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the Indian gentlemen who have come here at the invitation of the Ministry of Information to speak about India's war effort. I am not aware that their addresses at the meetings arranged for them by the Ministry of Information have included matter of the kind suggested.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a statement was made in India that these gentlemen would not engage in any partisan attacks on Indian organisations, but that one of them has been doing this?

Mr. Amery: These gentlemen may, at private meetings, have discussed social


problems such as, for instance, the position of the scheduled castes, but they have not, as far I am aware, indulged in active political controversy.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman investigate the matter in view of the fact that such tendentious statements are not in the best interests of these gentlemen or the cause they represent?

Mr. Amery: I am afraid that many tendentious statements are made by many people.

Sir H. Williams: Is it necessary that questions in this House on India should always be asked on behalf of the Brahmins?

Trade Union Delegation (Travel Facilities)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India whether passports and travelling facilities have been granted beyond Cairo for the trade union delegation from India; and what difficulties respecting their passage to this country have arisen.

Mr. Amery: Passport and travelling facilities would normally be arranged in India, and I have not heard that any difficulty has arisen. If the hon. Member has reason to think that difficulties have occurred and will pass his information to me I will consider it.

Mr. Sorensen: Is it then expected that this delegation will reach this country in the relatively near future?

Mr. Amery: Certainly, Sir.

COALMINING INDUSTRY (CONTROL)

Mr. Foster: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of taking over full financial control of the mining industry for the period of the war, in view of the present unsatisfactory position of the industry and the failure of the present form of control to produce good relations between the employees in the industry and the coalowners and the maximum output of coal.

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sees no reason to alter the views on this subject which he expressed at con-

siderable length in the course of the Debate in this House on 13th October last.

Mr. Foster: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him, in view of the fact that the present form of control in the mining industry, which has been in operation for two years, has failed to produce good relations between the workmen and the coalowners, and also to produce the maximum amount of coal; and in view of the fact that we are having trouble after trouble—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] In view of that fact, and in view—[Interruption.] May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he is aware that the troubles in the mining industry can be traced to the present form of control, that is, the dual form of control—

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Erskine-Hill: As a similar experiment carried out in the last war was successful—

Mr. Speaker: We have not got to the end of the first question yet.

Mr. Shinwell: As it is obvious that the existing form of control is not proving satisfactory, will the Government reconsider the whole matter?

Mr. Attlee: It is obvious from the length of the question of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Foster) that this is a matter which cannot be dealt with adequately by way of Question and answer.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman that he, too, is still of opinion that there is no crisis in the mining industry, in spite of the fact that there are all these stoppages and that they are continuing?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: This is becoming a Debate.

TEACHING OF ENGLISH (COMMITTEE)

Mr. Touche: asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the committee appointed by the Prime Minister in 1939 to inquire into the best means of teaching English to foreigners has not yet met; and whether, in these circumstances, it is proposed either to get this committee to function or to terminate is existence.

Mr. Attlee: This committee was appointed in August, 1939, but never started work. In common with many other peaceful enterprises, it had to give way to more urgent tasks on the outbreak of war. Since then, the Committee of Ministers on Basic English, of which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave the House some account on 9th March, has made some recommendations in this field. This being so, it is not proposed to resuscitate the 1939 Committee, and notification in this sense is being sent to the members.

Sir H. Williams: Would it not be as well to use this Committee to come to decisions on the Scott, Uthwatt and Barlow Reports as the Government do not appear to be able to do so?

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Retired Pay and Allowances

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish a draft of the proposed Royal Warrant and Order in Council authorising increases in the retired pay and pensions of certain former members of the Forces; and whether he will give an assurance that this House will have full opportunity to discuss and amend the proposals.

Mr. Attlee: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) on 2nd March last. The Government will certainly announce their detailed proposals regarding retired and pensioned members of the Forces and if hon. Members then desire an opportunity for discussion the Government will give careful consideration to any representations that may be made to that effect through the usual channels.

Sir I. Fraser: Does my right hon. Friend clearly mean that the Government will announce them before the Royal Warrant, because the Royal Warrant cannot be amended?

Mr. Attlee: It would be improper to publish a Royal Warrant in draft, but a public announcement can be made.

Captain Cobb: Will my right hon. Friend take such steps as are possible to ensure that the Royal Warrant will be

written in language which a layman can understand so as to avoid any future misunderstandings?

Mr. Attlee: I will note that point.

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much in the aggregate was deducted from the pensions of retired officers of the Armed Forces on account of falls in the index figure of the cost of living between 1924 and 1934;
(2) what amount in the aggregate of the cuts made from pensions of retired officers on account of the fall in the cost of living was restored to them between 1924 and the date of the stabilisation of pensions in 1935;
(3) how much in the aggregate was deducted between 31st July, 1935, and 31st December, 1943, from the pensions of retired officers of the Forces on account of the stabilisation of pensions at 9½ per cent. below the basic rates of 1919, irrespective of the rises which would have been granted had the conditions of the Royal Warrant of 1919 been adhered to.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, the Royal Warrant of 1919 reads as follows:
The new rates … are granted in consideration of the present high cost of living and the rates of pay, half pay and retired pay, will be subject after five years to revision either upwards or downwards to an extent not exceeding 20 per cent. as the cost of living rises or falls. After 1st July, 1924, a further revision may take place every three years.
I think it would be most convenient to answer the Questions by circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving the cost of living figures at appropriate dates during the whole period 1919–43, the adjustments actually made in retired pay at various dates during that period, and the adjustments which might have been made on a strict application of the original formula for cost of living adjustments.
I must point out that the terms of the Warrant which I have quoted do not require automatic revisions of retired pay rates, at set intervals or at all, after the 1st July, 1924, and do not in any way preclude such a measure as the stabilisation which was eventually effected in 1935.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is it not a fact that the sums deducted are very large, and does


my right hon. Friend not consider that these officers have strong claims to some restitution?

Officers' Retired Pay: Cost of Living Adjustments, 1919–35, and cost of living trend subsequent to 1935 stabilisation.


(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)


Date of adjustment.
Cost of living in preceding month.
Cost of living taken for purposes of adjustment.
Amount issuable per £100 retired pay if adjustment had been taken on (b).
Actual amount issued per £100 after adjustment on basis of (c).






£
£


1.7.19
…
107·5
107·5
100
100


1.7.24
…
69
77
92·9
94·5


1.7.27
…
63
75
91·7
94


1.7.30
…
54
70
90
93


1.7.31
…
45
65
88·3
92


1.10.31
…
45
50
88·3
89


1.7.34
…
38
52½
87
90


1.7.35
…
40
55
87·4
90·5


(stabilisation)






1.7.36
…
44
55
88·2
90·5


1.7.37
…
52
55
89·7
90·5


1.7.38
…
55
55
90·2
90·5


1.7.39
…
53
55
89·9
90·5


1.7.40
…
81
55
95·1
90·5


1.7.41
…
100
55
98·6
90·5


1.7.42
…
99
55
98·4
90·5


1.7.43
…
98
55
98·2
90·5


1.1.44
…
99
55
98·4
90·5

Family Allowances

Sir I. Fraser: asked the Prime Minister whether, when considering scales of family allowances for members of the Forces, he will give simultaneous consideration to the allowances payable to widows of members of the Forces in respect of their children, since these allowances are on the same scale as those paid by the Service Departments.

Mr. Attlee: My hon. and gallant Friend may be assured that the question of the allowances payable to widows of members of the Forces in respect of their children will be considered in the light of any decision which may be reached regarding the scale of family allowances for serving members of the Forces although it must not be understood that this reply presupposes any change in the existing allowances to the dependants of members of the Forces.

Sir I. Fraser: May I remind my right hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] May I ask my right hon. Friend if he will allow me to remind him that in August last the Government assimilated these two kinds of pensions, and that it is, therefore, important that they should continue to march together?

Sir J. Anderson: I think that is a matter for debate.

Following is the table:

Mr. Attlee: My answer showed that that was in the mind of the Government.

Mr. Burke: asked the Prime Minister if, when the allowances paid to dependants of Service personnel are under review, the claims of parents who do not at present receive any payment from the Government will also be given consideration.

Mr. Attlee: This Question will no doubt be raised, if hon. Members so desire, in the informal discussions now proceeding on Service allowances generally.

Mr. Burke: Will the Minister bear in mind that, while newly married wives of Servicemen are able to go out to work and also get allowances and allotments, parents are not able to do this and feel deeply that their sacrifice, both human and financial, is not sufficiently considered?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Building Sites, Bingham

Mr. Shephard: asked the Minister of Agriculture why the Bingham Rural District Council who wished to build four agricultural cottages on agricultural land


in Bingham, belonging to the Commissioners of Crown Lands, were asked £275 for half an acre whereas the average price of land in rural districts is £85 per acre and, as the Bingham Rural District Council wish to acquire land from the Commissioners for their post-war housing scheme and the Commissioners are exempt from the Lands Acquisition Act, 1919, what steps does he propose to take to ensure that this council will be able to acquire the land required at a reasonable figure.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): The site which the Bingham rural district council wished to acquire is near the centre of the small town of Bingham, with a frontage to the public street of 183 feet, Water and other services are in the immediate vicinity. The price asked was agreed between the Crown surveyors and the district valuer, and is comparable with the prices paid for several other similar building sites situate within 120 yards of the present site and sold by the Commissioners before the war. The Commissioners are ready to consider the sale of other land to the council and will do their best to assist them subject to their statutory duties. They are bound by the Crown Lands Acts and, except in certain circumstances which do not apply to a case of this kind, are unable to sell land below the best price that, in their opinion, can reasonably be obtained.

Mr. Shephard: Is the Minister aware that the Bingham rural district council ultimately abandoned the building of these cottages because of the price which was asked, and that they have built them in an adjoining parish?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member seems to be giving a lot of information rather than asking for it.

Lorry Drivers, North Riding (Hours of Work)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Agriculture for what average period per day are the drivers employed by the North Riding war agricultural executive committee on the driving of Italian prisoners of war actually engaged in driving duties; and, whether, during the remainder of the day, these drivers are permitted to undertake other employment.

Mr. Hudson: The drivers in the employment of the committee are engaged in conveying prisoners for up to 2½ hours a day. During the remainder of the day they are used for other transport work or, if they are not needed for this work, the committee arranges for them to work on farms or drainage schemes, or at the committee's machinery depots.

Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. Friend investigate this matter further? Is he aware of the complaint that both lorries and drivers are idle for six hours out of an eight hours working day?

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir, but I am not sure whether that applies to the people referred to in my hon. Friend's Question. He asked about the drivers employed by this committee and I have looked into the matter. There are a certain number of lorries hired by the committee, whose drivers do not come into it. [Interruption.] An hon. Member opposite suggests that they do nothing all day. Let me tell him that the Transport and General Workers' Union have insisted that the consent of drivers to do other work must be obtained in every case, and that that consent is not always forthcoming.

Calves (Slaughter)

Captain Duncan: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking or has taken to prevent the slaughter for food of well-bred young stock, particularly calves and heifers, in view of the needs of this country and Europe after the war for breeding stock.

Mr. Hudson: The increased slaughter of calves during recent months is mainly confined to beef animals. In view of the anticipated shortage of meat in the years immediately after the end of hostilities with Germany, farmers have been and are being urged to rear wherever practicable more steer calves for beef production.

Captain Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that farmers have stated that they are slaughtering their calves because they have not enough feeding stuffs, and will he do all he can to afford them sufficient feeding stuffs for the feeding of such cattle?

Oral Answers to Questions — JOINT POLICE FORCES (CHIEF CONSTABLES)

Mr. Touche: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he


will state in each case the rank now held by the former chief constables of the borough police forces recently amalgamated in Surrey, Kent and Sussex.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Of the 13 chief constables concerned, five elected to retire under the terms of the Amalgamation Order, six were appointed as assistant chief constables in the joint forces, and two were appointed as superintendents.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRAVEL PERMITS, NORTHERN IRELAND

Dr. Little: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will arrange with passport officials to grant travel permits to ministers and evangelists who have already promised to speak at religious conventions and conferences in Northern Ireland for which all arrangements have been made.

Mr. Morrison: In accordance with the terms of the Government announcement made on March 13th, those who have already obtained permits to go to Northern Ireland will be allowed to use them. The others do not come within the exceptions specified in the announcement and I regret that I cannot single them out for any exceptional treatment.

Dr. Little: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these ministers and evangelists are reaching thousands in Northern Ireland, where we are passing through a very testing time at the moment? They are encouraging people to be strong in the Lord, to pray and work for the war and to hasten the day of victory—and I think he should let them cross.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to thank him for his courtesy in receiving a deputation, and to ask him one further question? Will he give an assurance that the travel ban is temporary and will be removed as soon as circumstances make it possible?

Mr. Morrison: I am very much obliged to my right hon. Friend. Certainly, I can give a categorical assurance, as far as I and the Government are concerned, that it will give us great pleasure, when circumstances permit, to remove this ban at the earliest possible moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Fires (Notification)

Mr. Astor: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now considered the representations made to him regarding the need for simplifying the system of reporting fires; and whether he can make a statement.

Mr. H. Morrison: Under the Fire Guard Plan the responsibility for deciding whether the National Fire Service should be summoned to a fire rests with the street fire party leader or block leader, who is on the spot and is in the best position to judge the fire situation. I am considering suggestions for the simplification of the form of message to be used by these officers for summoning the National Fire Service. These arrangements have been supplemented in London by a system of direct reports by observers specially posted by the National Fire Service.

Mr. Astor: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the present system has proved cumbersome and that there is unnecessary delay in getting the N.F.S. to a fire, because of the bureaucratic type of machinery? Could he not consider simplifying it, in the same way as he would like to simplify the procedure of Parliament?

Mr. Morrison: I will not claim that everything is perfect, but I think that my hon. Friend's observations are a hit sweeping.

Place Names (Display)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the replacement of signposts and the appearance of advertising matter indicating local place-names, he will consider whether the names of localities, particularly in towns, could now be uncovered or replaced on vehicles, buildings and public announcements.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am not at present in a position to add anything to the answers to Questions on this subject on 16th March by the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Stockport (Wing-Commander Hulbert).

Mr. Sorensen: Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that it seems rather


ridiculous that the name of a town can appear outside but not inside the town itself and, in view of the fact that all these place names are gradually appearing would he expedite a decision on the matter?

Mr. Morrison: The matter is under consideration and I will keep my hon. Friend's point in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORAL REGISTER (COMPLETION)

Mr. Mander: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is now able to state when the new register under the Parliament (Elections and Meetings) Act, 1943, will be in operation.

Mr. H. Morrison: As I indicated on 27th January, the new registration system cannot come into force until two months after the material transferred from national registration officers to electoral registration officers has been sorted and arranged. At my request the electoral registration officers are dealing with this rather formidable task as speedily as possible, and in some areas this preliminary work has already been completed. In other areas, owing to lack of staff and other difficulties, progress has inevitably been slower. I hope, however, that the initial process may be completed in all areas before the end of next month.

Mr. Mander: Does not my right hon. Friend believe that this reform will bring bigger and better by-elections, and will he therefore hurry it on?

Mr. Morrison: The Government always hope for the best from by-elections.

Mr. Cocks: Is it not a fact that hundreds of thousands of young people are eager to express their confidence in the Prime Minister and their disgust at some of the reactionary duds that surround him?

Oral Answers to Questions — JUVENILE DELINQUENCY (ADVISORY COUNCIL)

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to make any statement in regard to the proposed committee on juvenile delinquency.

Mr. H. Morrison: In view of the length of the answer to this Question I will, with permission, give it at the end of Questions.

Later:

Mr. H. Morrison: By leave of the House I make this statement in relation to the Question:
I have been considering the subject of juvenile delinquency as part of the general problem of penal reform. It is, in my view, essential to consider this problem as a whole. Amongst both the older and younger delinquents there are offenders with widely differing characters and histories who are found guilty of widely differing offences, and the problem is to find appropriate methods of dealing with these various individuals whose common characteristic is that they have broken the law. This is a single problem with many sides. Every persistent offender has been at one time a first offender, and questions affecting the child or the adolescent offender are closely linked with questions affecting the older offenders. To assist me in dealing with this subject as a whole I have come to the conclusion that what is wanted is not another committee of inquiry but a standing committee to advise and assist the Home Office in developing a comprehensive policy of reforms and to maintain constant touch with the implementation of that policy. There have been a number of committees of inquiry. Much information has been collected and a large measure of agreement has been reached, but while much material is already available on which to base a policy of progress, there is much work still to be done in shaping that policy and translating it into action. In carrying out this work it is, I think, very desirable that the official knowledge and experience of the Home Office should be pooled with the knowledge and ideas of men and women whose experience has lain in various fields, including not only those who have been associated with the work of the courts and with the treatment of offenders but others who may approach this problem with fresh ideas and broad sympathies gained in other spheres of work.
I propose, therefore, to invite a number of suitable persons to serve on an Advisory Council constituted for the purpose of assisting the Home Secretary to draw


up a programme of reforms in methods of dealing with offenders, and to advise him with regard to the various measures required to implement this programme. When this Council has been constituted I shall ask them to give special and early attention to the problems connected with juvenile delinquency. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, with whom I have been in consultation, contemplates the possibility of action in Scotland on broadly similar lines, full account being taken of the position of advisory bodies already in existence there.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Is the Home Secretary aware that the statement he has made is even better than we hoped for, and that it will be received with great interest and will be highly acceptable to many throughout the country?

Mr. Morrison: I am much obliged to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Bowles: Will the Home Secretary ask the Advisory Committee to take into account that sometimes these juvenile delinquents, when released from prison, are examined and are alleged to be found to be feeble-minded because they are not able to answer certain questions, such as how many pennies there are in half a crown, with the result that they are put away in colonies for an indefinite period? Will my right hon. Friend see that that matter is looked into by his Council?

Mr. Morrison: I am sure that that would be a matter relevant to the work of the Council.

Mr. Goldie: In view of the wonderful work done by probation officers will the Home Secretary see that the probation service is represented on the Council?

Mr. Morrison: I will certainly consider that point.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Is it proposed to set up similar machinery in Scotland, where the problem is much more serious? Also, has the Home Secretary been in close consultation with the Board of Education on this matter, and will there be representatives from the teaching profession on this Advisory Council?

Mr. Morrison: Seeing that all the naughty children in the approved schools come from the elementary schools there is

a point in that Question. Perhaps they ought to answer for what they have been doing. Any questions regarding Scotland should be put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but I think it will be found that he will be taking steps in harmony with what I propose for England and Wales.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I do not think that what my right hon. Friend has said is quite clear. Is the Advisory Council to give him advice on new legislation, or is it to be exclusively administrative, without any change in the law?

Mr. Morrison: Of course, the responsibility for proposing legislation must rest with the Home Secretary and the Government, but I should certainly imagine that advice on matters connected with new legislation lying within the field of the Advisory Council would be welcomed.

Mr. Sorensen: Will my right hon. Friend give some indication of the size of this Advisory Council, and whether they will periodically issue reports?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know about issuing reports. That is a matter for the Home Secretary of the day. With regard to the size of the Council, I am not yet clear. I do not want it to be unduly large—I think everybody will agree on that. On the other hand, if it is to be a Council of all the elements which I want represented on it, it is bound to be a body of some size.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Home Secretary consider putting approved schools under the control and direction of the education authority? If he considers taking on a probation officer, which would be very desirable, would he also consider taking on someone who has been a juvenile delinquent under a probation officer?

Mr. Morrison: I should want to know the record of that person before appointing him. I appreciate that there are arguments in favour of, but there are also strong arguments against, the view that particular ages and stages of delinquency should be separated from consideration of the whole problem of delinquency and crime, and I doubt whether it would be wise, from the point of view of the Home Office, having to consider delinquency and crime from its beginning, if one phase of it was separated from the others.

Mr. Leach: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the increasing excellence of approved schools promotes the desire to get children there, and that the only way they can get there is by some delinquency?

Sir Richard Acland: The right hon. Gentleman said that this body might or might not make reports. Who is to decide whether any particular item of its advice is to be made publicly or privately, the body itself or the Home Secretary?

Mr. Morrison: The Home Secretary must decide that.

Sir R. Acland: Is this to be a secret board, whose advice can be kept private if the Home Secretary does not wish to publish it? Should not its advice be made public to the world?

Mr. Morrison: I hope that my hon. Friend will not work himself up to a state of dramatic excitement. If the Home Secretary appoints a committee, it is for him to decide whether its advice shall be made public or not.

Mr. Burke: Will the school attendance officers or education officers be represented, because their advice would be valuable?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think I should give any undertakings about the representation of particular interests. I will do my best to maintain the balance as well as I can.

Mr. Lindsay: In view of the debatable points which my right hon. Friend has raised between Departments, will it be possible to have a Debate on this question, which has not been discussed at all?

Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend is very unjust: I did not raise any debatable points. The debatable points were raised by hon. Members. I merely answered as reasonably as I could. To accuse me of arousing controversy is, I think, shocking.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. FRANK A. HOWARD

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the nature of the business while in this country of Mr. Frank A. Howard.

Mr. H. Morrison: The gentleman to whom I understand my hon. Friend to refer paid a number of brief visits to this country between February and Septem-

ber, 1939. He has not been here, so far as I am aware, since he left for America at the beginning of October, 1939. I cannot say what business he transacted while in this country.

Mr. Smith: Is it not a very serious state of affairs that the Home Secretary, who is responsible for giving permission for people to visit this country, is not aware of this man's business? Is it not a fact that this man was representing powerful world monopolies, including, indirectly, the I.G. of Germany? In view of that statement, will not the right hon. Gentleman make further investigation into the matter in order that he can satisfy himself about it?

Mr. Morrison: It might be remembered that this gentleman came to this country in the piping days of peace—or at any rate in the days of peace. Therefore, it may be that the information was not as full as it would be in war time. In any case, I am not sure that it would be right for me to give, in public, the details of the private business of people who come to this country.

Mr. Smith: While accepting that in general, may I ask whether it is not a fact in this special case that this man paid special visits here in order to safeguard subsidiary interests of the I.G. of Germany?

Mr. Morrison: I do not know.

Sir Irving Albery: On a point of Order. Is it not a breach of Privilege for an hon. Member to make imputations which cannot be replied to against private citizens unless the imputations are properly substantiated?

Mr. Speaker: Every hon. Member must make himself responsible for his own statements.

Mr. Smith: Further to that point of Order. May I say that I would be the very last person to make an imputation of this kind unless there was substance in it, and that I am prepared to leave this matter to the future to prove whether the statements which I have made are well-founded?

Oral Answers to Questions — EIRE NATIONALS (INCOME TAX)

Mr. Liddall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, under Pay-as-you-Earn, all Southern Irishmen in this


country have been served by the Inland Revenue Commissioners with code numbers.

Sir J. Anderson: Notices of coding have been sent to all employees, without distinction who are known to the Inland Revenue to be earning over £2 a week. If an employer pays over £2 a week to any employee for whom no code number has been notified to him, he is required under "Pay-as-you-Earn" to inform the tax office at once and, pending further instructions, to deduct tax in accordance with the code applicable to a single man without dependants.

Mr. Liddall: Does that mean that it is now definite that Irish labourers, say in Lincolnshire, for instance, will be treated as residents and taxed for Pay-as-you-earn?

Sir J. Anderson: No, that is not the effect of the law, but where no notification to the contrary is received, it will be the duty of the employer to make deductions, subject to whatever readjustment may be necessary at a later stage.

Mr. Shinwell: Would the right hon. Gentleman clarify the position a little? Are we to understand from his statement that citizens of Eire in this country can escape taxation? Is that what he is suggesting?

Sir J. Anderson: I was only referring to the state of the law. It is a fact that citizens of Eire temporarily resident in this country are left to be taxed by the Government of Eire and not by this country, under an agreement between the two Governments.

Mr. Shinwell: What is meant by temporary residence here? What is the definition?

Sir J. Anderson: I am only concerned to try to make clear the actual position under the law. Under the residence agreement which has been entered into between this country and Eire, a person resident in Eire and not resident in the United Kingdom would not be liable to United Kingdom Income Tax on income from United Kingdom sources. If a labourer from Eire is not resident here, for example, if he spends less than six months here in the Income Tax year—that is the ordinary definition of residence for Income Tax purposes—he is not liable

to tax. Nevertheless, tax will be deducted in such a case, and relief will be given by way of repayment.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is it not a fact that a lot of the Irish labourers see that they go back inside six months and then come back again? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman stop that?

Mr. Dermot Campbell: Is it not a fact that officers of His Majesty's Services normally resident in Eire have to pay Income Tax both in Eire and in this country?

Sir J. Anderson: As the House, I think, knows, there is an agreement about the over-lapping liability with regard to Income Tax As to the particular case on which I was questioned, I was merely endeavouring to inform the House accurately on the present state of the law. I was not being argumentative.

Professor Savory: May I ask my right hon. Friend to state what is the corresponding position of workmen from Northern Ireland?

Sir J. Anderson: Workmen from Northern Ireland belong to the United Kingdom, which is one fiscal unit.

Mr. Molson: When was this agreement entered into, and when can it be denounced; and will my right hon. Friend denounce it?

Sir J. Anderson: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put a Question on the Paper. The agreement was not entered into in my time.

Mr. Molson: I am very glad to hear that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the Business for the next series of Sittings?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The Business for the next series of Sitting Days will be as follows:
First and Second Sitting Days—Further progress will be made in Committee on the Education Bill.
Third Sitting Day—Committee stage of the Pensions (Increase) Bill. If it is agreeable to the House we would also like to


take the concluding stages on the same day.
Fourth Sitting Day—Committee and remaining stages of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill, and remaining stages of the Pensions (Increase) Bill, if not previously disposed of.
On the Third Sitting Day it will be necessary to go into Secret Session, in order to consider a Motion relating to the Sittings of the House.

Earl Winterton: Will arrangements be made for a Debate, which has been asked for, on Imperial relationships, with special reference to the speeches of the right hon. Gentlemen the Prime Ministers of Australia and South Africa; and, if it is not possible to give a day before Easter, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility, in view of the number of Members who wish to take part, of giving two days after Easter, on the understanding that this Debate was asked for by a number of Members in all parts of the House, not through the usual channels?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I had set aside a day before Easter, which I had hoped would have been convenient, but now we are a little behind with legislation, and I should find it difficult to do that. It would help me very much if I could arrange it after Easter, at as early a date as possible, and I will consider, on the representations which I get, whether a second day is necessary or not. If there is a general demand, I will try to meet it.

Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend understand that there is a general demand, which has been expressed over and over again? Will he now take it from several hon. and right hon. Gentlemen that there is a demand for a two-days Debate after Easter, if necessary, and earlier, if possible?

Mr. Eden: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for expressing his views to me so plainly.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Is my right hon. Friend yet in a position to announce a date for a Debate on the coalmining industry, which, in the view of many of us, is the, most pressing domestic problem at present?

Mr. Eden: I have only announced the Business for the next series of Sittings. I would not like to go further than that.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that it is proposed, on the third Sitting Day, to consider future Sittings of the House, in Secret Session. In view of the fact that the efficient running of this institution is at stake, with all that that means to the staff and others, have we not reached a stage in the war when it is in the public interest that this matter should be considered in public; and, if so, will my right hon. Friend agree to reconsider his decision, in order that the public shall know where we all stand with regard to the efficient running of the democratic machinery of this country?

Mr. Eden: That raises all the issues of security in connection with meetings of this House, which have been many times considered and debated, and I certainly could not undertake, before the third of the next series of Sitting Days, to make any change.

Mr.Gallacher: I want to ask the Leader of the House if he will arrange for a statement to be issued to the Press, following the conference with Ministers which has been taking place, in view of the fact that the "Daily Sketch" is able to publish information of what took place at that conference. If the "Daily Sketch" has special facilities for getting information it is hardly fair that the other papers should not get the opportunity of publishing a statement. Will the right hon. Gentleman have such a statement issued, or will he take action against the "Daily Sketch"?

Mr. Eden: I try to answer questions on Business, but I hope I shall not be asked to answer for the "Daily Sketch."

Mr. Maxton: Would I be breaking a Parliamentary understanding if I were to state, in public, that I am in favour of shorter rather than longer Sittings of the House? Would that be a wrong thing for me to say?

Mr. Eden: I should imagine so.

Mr. Ellis Smith: We look upon you, Mr. Speaker, as responsible for safeguarding the rights of private Members and, therefore, I want to put a question to you. Is it not taking advantage of the Standing Orders, for the Executive to propose that we should go into Secret Session on a matter of the kind to which I have re-


ferred, in view of the fact that, once the Leader of the House has spied Strangers, the whole question is prejudiced? Between now and the time when this Secret Debate is to take place, will you, Sir, be good enough to consider whether the Executive are entitled, upon this issue, to spy Strangers? Will you not consider whether this is taking advantage of the Standing Orders?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the House itself. If anybody spies Strangers I have to put the Question. Though it cannot be debated, the House can always say "No," and then the Strangers cannot be ordered to withdraw. Therefore, it is a matter entirely in the hands of the House itself.

HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (CINEMA PROJECTOR)

Mr. Buchanan: Last week-end, Mr. Speaker, I wrote you a letter, and with your permission I would like to read the letter, because I think it puts what I wish to say somewhat better and more clearly than, possibly, I could otherwise express it. I wrote you from the City of Glasgow last Friday:
Dear Mr. SPEAKER,—I propose on Tuesday after Question Time to raise with you the Question of your receiving on behalf of the House of Commons a gift of a cinema. It is my view that before this was done, the House of Commons should have been consulted and I question the desirability of receiving such a gift. If a cinema be required, then it was for the House of Commons to provide for the funds for the same.
There are one or two other questions which I do not propose to raise now, but I raise this issue: that on a question of this kind this House of Commons is the body to decide. I trust that you will be able to clear my mind on this issue. I take very serious exception to anybody, no matter who he is—and I have nothing against this gentleman—making such a gift, and I raise that issue with you.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) for giving me notice of the Question which he has just put to me, though it is not a question which, under the Rules of Order, could normally be put, as it is not concerned with the proceedings of the House, and should not be regarded as a precedent for the future. I confess that it did not occur to me, nor, I am sure, did it occur to the Lord Chancellor, that this

gift of a new projector required the preliminary authority of a Resolution of both Houses. The facts are that a cinema projector was originally installed in the Grand Committee Room at the end of 1941 by the Ministry of Information to show certain special films to Members. The Minister was then induced to leave the projector there in order that films might be provided for Civil Defence personnel who protect the Palace from fire by night, among whom, of course, are Members of Parliament. A number of instructional films were also shown from time to time to the Home Guard. In the summer of 1943 urgent repairs to the instrument became necessary; the Ministry of Information removed the projector, and later intimated that they were unable to return it.
At a meeting of the Fire Committee a few months ago the matter was mentioned and an hon. Member of this House said he might be able to help by arranging for the provision of a new apparatus. Subsequently this hon. Member reported that he had approached Mr. Rank, who had expressed his willingness to present such apparatus to the Houses of Parliament. It was generally agreed that a cinema apparatus would be a suitable addition to the amenities available in the Palace of Westminster. A meeting was held with the Ministry of Works, which agreed to bear the cost of the simple installation required, and the appropriate Government Departments were approached for the allocation and supply of the necessary additional apparatus. I may say that the ownership of this new projector is vested in the Lord Great Chamberlain. I think hon. Members generally will agree, and certain hon. 'Members who have been sharing in Civil Defence and Home Guard duties in the Palace will know, that the loss of the previous apparatus was widely felt, and all concerned had no doubt that there would be general satisfaction that the opportunity of seeing films in the Grand Committee Room was being restored. I am not at all disposed to differ from the hon. Member in his contention that gifts for the benefit of either House of Parliament have to be examined with care, in order to avoid the possible suspicion of indirect motive, but, as I have said, in the present case I think all who were concerned in this little ceremony regarded it as involving nothing more than a kindly action for which it was not


inappropriate that thanks should be expressed by the Lord Chancellor and myself.

Mr. Buchanan: I want to thank you for the length of your answer, Mr. Speaker, but it does not satisfy me at all, and I say that frankly. First of all you make the case that the Civil Defence people required it. It may well be true, but it has nothing to do with the issue. The issue is that a citizen, a rich citizen, has endowed this House of Commons with a cinema—a rich citizen who may well be, any day, in conflict seriously with a Government Department. With all due respect to you, Sir, your answer has not allayed my anxiety, but much increased it, because I feel that the question of the wishes of Civil Defence and other workers has nothing whatever to do with the issue. It makes the position worse when the Minister of Information decided he would take this away. I cannot debate the matter now, but I give notice to you that I cannot allow it to rest as it is, and I must reserve my right as a Member to go into it further, no matter how many may agree to that, because I think the House ought to be safeguarded from what is a very wrong and shocking practice.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if you made inquiries whether, when the other projector was declared to be out of action, the Ministry of Information had not available one of their projectors of the mobile type commonly used by them and now available in many local areas, which have not the facilities we have in this House?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member seems to think that I alone was taking action. The Fire Committee was really the responsible committee. The responsibility really lay with the Lord Great Chamberlain's Department. They have control of the building, but I do know that all those inquiries were made and that nothing could be got.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you consulted the precedents in this regard? Have you ascertained whether there was any precedent for those associated with this building accepting a gift from an outsider, or is this the first instance of it?

Mr. Speaker: I could not say without notice, though I am sure that many gifts have been made from outsiders.

Mr. Bowles: I feel that this is a matter of great constitutional significance. I am perfectly certain that the country is worried about it as well. I was wondering, Mr. Speaker, whether you would not consult with the Lord Chancellor and ask him to see the Lord Great Chamberlain and have the gift handed back.

Mr. Gallacher: I was going to suggest that the best solution would be to give Mr. Rank his projector back and we will raise the money here. I am sure that within a day I could raise the money. I would subscribe myself and I am sure that within a day I could raise the money.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order. May I respectfully suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that if we are to have a continuance of what is, in effect, a Debate under the guise of questions those of us who wish to put the other side of the case will wish to speak? Would it not be more convenient if hon. Members on this side who wish to discuss this matter would put down a substantive Motion criticising either yourself or the gift?

Mr. Buchanan: I only rise to say that I need no lectures from the Noble Lord on procedure.

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to suggest anything to the House, but it seems that we are now getting a little away from the Business and as perhaps we are getting a little heated I suggest that we may now go on to the other Business.

BILL REPORTED

CONNAH'S QUAY GAS BILL

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

Bill, as amended, to lie upon the Table.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered:
That the Proceedings on the Education Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Eden.]

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION BILL

Considered in Committee [Progress, 2rst March].

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 40.—(Schemes of further education.)

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): I beg to move, in page 32, line 22, to leave out Subsection (2).
This Sub-section was originally inserted in order to retain the interest of education authorities in the blind. That was a desirable object, but we have now discovered that the training of the blind is fully covered by the Measure which the House was considering recently and which is now the Disabled Persons Employment Act, and that therefore it is not necessary to include in this Bill this Sub-section (2) relating solely to the blind. In fact, it would be rather confusing, as the blind are covered by the Disabled Persons Employment Act, and under Sub-section (2) of Clause 2 of that Act it is possible, and indeed is contemplated, that the training of the blind shall be delegated to local education authorities. I can assure the Committee that in leaving out this Sub-section they will not affect the training of the blind, because that duty is clearly established under the other Act. A further advantage of omitting this Sub-section would be that the other categories of disabled persons, the deaf, the dumb, and so forth, will not, by implication, be left out of the Statute. They will be covered by the Disabled Persons Act, and therefore, I think that it would be much wiser to leave out this Sub-section, taking the assurance which I give that the matter is covered by recent legislation providing that these powers are delegated to local education authorities.

Mr. Messer: I want to get an assurance in regard to other

matters. As the Clause stands, it is clear that, when the blind are specifically mentioned, that, by implication, leaves out everybody else. I have considered very carefully what the President said, and it would appear that he is now relying on the provisions of the Disabled Persons Act. As I understand that Act, it deals in the main with vocational and technical training, but I have in mind further education. Further education swill relate, not merely to technical education or some type of vocational training, but it may be further education of an academic sort, not covered by the Blind Persons Act. I want to have an assurance in regard to that, because I can conceive the possibility of the physically handicapped child, who does not want to take advantage of the Disabled Persons Act 'because it is not vocational but academic education that he wants, not being covered. It seems to me that, unless there is some specific provison in this Bill, apart from the mere statement that education will be available, such cases might fall between this Measure and the Disabled Persons Act. We need to give it further consideration. If the President of the Board will give me an assurance on this I shall not stand in the way of the Committee in passing the Clause. I think he is wise in deleting this Sub-section, because everybody can see that there is a possibility of injustice. But I hope he will assure us that, by removing this Sub-section altogether, he is not leaving out those other categories which do not come under the 'Disabled Persons Act.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I would like to support my hon. Friend. If he can get a form of words that includes the handicapped adult, as well as others, I think that would cover it.

Mr. Butler: I think the answer to the two hon. Members is quite clear. In so far as vocational training is concerned, of course, the definition is in Section (1) of the Disabled Persons Act. As regards further education, and education in special schools, or the continuation of education in special schools after 16, or such questions as arise under Clause 31 (3) of this Bill—in all those matters, I am advised Clause 40 enables the Minister to continue further education of such disabled persons. Therefore this sub-section is really unnecessary, because the matter is already covered.

Mr. Messer: It seems that, in effect, they are included with the other categories?

Mr. Butler: Yes, that is so.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir Joseph Lamb: I beg to move, in page 32, line 31, after "as", to insert "after consultation with the authority."
This Clause deals with the question of the approval of schemes for further education. First, the local authority has to make its scheme and put it forward to the Minister, and then, under this subsection, the Minister has to approve that scheme when put forward. Later, the scheme has to be put into operation by the local authorities in consultation with the Minister. This is the point. We desire that the Minister shall consult with the local authorities before he approves a scheme. We think that would be much better, and would lead to better working, than if the scheme were made and representations made later to the Minister.

Mr. Butler: I do not know whether the hon. Member will desire to press his Amendment. We would rather have expected his Amendment to be directed to requiring consultation with the local authority on any modification in the scheme which the Minister thought it expedient to make. I do not know whether the hon. Member would like me to consider this plan in that light, before we get to the next stage. If so, I would do that, but I do not think that it is necessary to insist on the Amendment as moved. If the hon. Member will leave the matter like that, I will do so.

Earl Winterton: I hope the Minister will be cautious about this Amendment. It is like many others, put forward by my hon. Friend on behalf of the County Councils Association. I would like to say that a number of us who represent county constituencies by no means accept as completely sound the views of the County Councils Association on this or other aspects of the Bill. Those who represent country constituencies ask the Minister to be cautious about accepting this Amendment. I think the answer the Minister has given is sufficient. We do not want to have these schemes held up while there are long consultations between the two bodies. This is not to suggest that county councils

will be unreasonable, but consultations between these bodies often mean unnecessary delay, and I hope that, in this and other matters, the Minister will be a little cautious and consider every point of view.

Sir J. Lamb: It is quite true that the association does not speak for every individual or section, but it speaks for the majority. We are not dealing however with the County Councils Association, which my right hon. Friend seems to attack in some form or other, but with the local education authorities, and we are asking that these local authorities should be given an opportunity of putting their views to the Minister before he makes a modification, which he is entitled to do, and is expected to do, if necessary, under the Bill, rather than that these modifications should be made without some sort of consultation and thus, possibly, cause friction later in working. It does not take away any of the Minister's powers. We are asking only that we shall have an opportunity of doing all we possibly can to facilitate the smooth working of the Bill.

Mr. Messer: I do not see why the Minister cannot accept the Amendment. Local education authorities will submit to the Minister, and if the Minister may make such modifications as he considers fit, there may be special points in regard to particular counties, and if the Minister consulted the local education authorities on them, his modification might undergo some change. Would it not be better if, before he approved a scheme, he consulted the local education authority? Would this not make for efficiency in administration? The Minister, with his advisers, sitting in Whitehall, will have a magnificent paper plan, but we are not dealing with paper, but essentially with human beings who are better known to the local education authority than to the Minister and his advisers. In these circumstances, it seems to me that, while the Minister, looking at this thing theoretically, may consider some modifications justified, it would be wrong for him to put them into operation if, when put into operation, they are found to be against the best interests of the scheme. I think the Minister might accept the Amendment without damaging the Clause.

Mr. Silkin: The Minister has given an assurance that he will look into this matter. He does not want to


consult local authorities, if he already agrees with them.

Mr. Butler: I would suggest that we should insert these words, because there is popular support for the case. If I want that to be revised, I will do so when this question arises for consideration again. We will accept these words.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 33, line 5, after "include," to insert:
provisions for the establishment and maintenance of, or the giving of assistance to, institutions for further education, the giving of assistance to universities, and,
This Amendment is moved with the object of making it clear that, in schemes for further education, local authorities are entirely free to give assistance to voluntary organisations and universities, or to run establishments themselves. If my right hon. Friend is going to say, as he has done on so many occasions, that the words are already covered, I should be greatly obliged. Will he give me that assurance?

Mr. Butler: I can give the assurance which the hon. Member desires in regard to the word "institutions." I am advised that assistance to the universities also is covered, but we are examining that point. It may be necessary to insert something further in the Bill, at the next stage, to cover assistance to the universities. If the hon. Member will accept that assurance, I think we can deal with the matter when we come to it again.

Professor Gruffydd: The words do not cover, legally, the whole position. The phrase should be "universities and university colleges."

Mr. Butler: I will bear that in mind.

Mr. Woods: I am glad that the Minister has given consideration to this question. Later on, there is an Amendment on Clause 51, which deals specifically with physical training and social recreation and so forth. This deals specifically with education, but I am looking forward to the day when community centres will be very closely linked up with the Minister's young people's colleges. My experience is that people do not take up education if it is labelled education. When it is associated with their corporate life, it is more likely to arouse popular interest,

which I think we all desire. If we look back over the past, we find that voluntary organisations have played an enormous part in the development of education. The mechanics' institutes carried on for years without any assistance, beyond the subscriptions of the men and women concerned about education. They made a great contribution, and I am looking forward, after this century, to the days when, in the movement to get popular interest in social well-being and education, these things will be part of the community sense. Just as there is a misgiving on the part of my hon. Friend, there is a general feeling that this aspect is not sufficiently covered in the Bill, and I hope that, by some such modification as is suggested, we shall give an opportunity for participating in experimentation in community centres and youth movements generally, so I hope there will be a free margin for experimentation and development, not in isolation, but responded to by education authorities and encouraged in every way possible.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I am very glad that the President of the Board of Education has given the assurance which we have had from him. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to give the widest scope in the terms that he is considering for insertion in the Bill, because he will always have the check of approval of the scheme. If the words in the Bill are wide enough to enable local authorities to give assistance to voluntary educational societies, community centres, university colleges and all other kinds of educational activity as I say the Minister would always retain the check of approving the scheme and there is therefore no danger that there will be squandering of money. I do hope that, along with the other work which has been alluded to by hon. Members, it will be possible for such work as is being done in the educational settlements, in a number of centres, to be assisted directly by the local authority, otherwise than by a mere grant in respect of certain authorised classes or courses. I hope that similar work in educational civic centres will develop all over the country under the aegis of the local education authorities, and that the Minister will give the fullest facilities for such development.

Mr. Naylor: Following the explanation of the Minister,


and the promise he has made, may I ask him further to consider this point? There are certain educational societies which now have a direct grant from the Board of Education and have direct access to the Board on matters affecting their operations. Will the Minister bear in mind the importance of maintaining this position in whatever alterations he proposes to make? What I am thinking of is, that it might be left to the local education authority to deal with the local branches of a national educational association. What I am anxious to secure is, that the Minister should not allow any alteration to interfere with the present privilege held by these associations, in the first place, of a direct grant from the Board of Education, and, in the second, the right of access to the Board in relation to the curriculum and other matters. It is important that they should preserve the national aspect of their operations.

Sir George Schuster: I want, if I am in Order in doing so, to raise a point in connection with this Clause. It is difficult on this Bill to get an opportunity to talk generally on the question of adult education, and I am not going to attempt it now, though I should very much like to do so. The point I want to raise is this: Under this Clause and, indeed, under the whole provisions of this Bill, all schemes which may come up, have to come up through the local education authorities. I take one particular aspect of adult education—that of residential colleges. It is only one aspect, but it is of very great importance—

The Chairman (Major Milner): That does not appear to be in Order on this Amendment. I am afraid I must call the hon. Member to order.

Mr. Silkin: In view of the undertaking of my right hon. Friend, I have pleasure in withdrawing the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir G. Schuster: Perhaps I might raise my point now. I think we are agreed, in all quarters of the Committee, that the provision of adult education is one of the most important questions before the country. What a number of us want to be assured about is that, when this Bill

is passed, we shall not only leave the Minister and the local education authorities with certain powers, but that we shall have expressed most strongly to the Minister the view that we desire to have those powers exercised in a certain way and to see public money expended on certain purposes. As I see it, schemes under Clause 40 have to come up to the Minister from the local education authorities. If we take one important aspect of adult education—education in residential colleges—we may feel that the time has come for a great national experiment in starting residential colleges all over the country. We may have ex-expressed the view in this Committee that we do not expect to see everything done at once, but that we do want to see say twelve first-class residential colleges set up in different parts of the country. It may so happen that, when the Minister receives his schemes from the local authorities, he may find proposals for these residential colleges. The aggregate of the local schemes may not add up to the total which either the Minister or hon. Members think necessary in the national interest.
I want to know what is going to be the position in that case. Are we to have an opportunity of expressing a view on this matter, and of saying that we would gladly, as taxpayers, provide educational facilities of this kind? Are we not to be satisfied that, after this Bill is passed, there will be a really comprehensive move forward on that particular line of the residential colleges, and perhaps other lines as well? I think I have made my point clear, and I hope the Minister can give me some assurance on this matter. He told us the other day that he has powers and that his wings are not clipped. I venture to say that we were satisfied on that, but we want to know if he is going to fly in a certain direction. I also want to know if his wings are to be the wings of an angel and not those of some bird of prey. I want to know if he is to exercise a benevolent interest, and I should like to see the Committee express a very strong view that we want to spend money on adult education in the widest sense.

Mr. Lindsay: I rise to support the view expressed by my hon. Friend, and by many other hon. Members who have discussed this subject during the last month.


The position I would like to put is this. Before the war, there were three partners—the local education authorities, the voluntary societies, like the W.E.A., and the universities. This trinity was responsible for the bulk of the so-called adult education work—some of it by lectures and some by class work. There are already half-a-dozen residential colleges, such as Ruskin College. There is the Women's Institute, which is a very big force in the country and is now thinking of setting up its own residential college. There are also discussion groups throughout the Civil Defence services, in the Army, the Navy and the Air Force, and, to a limited extent, they are growing up in factories. There are also refresher courses in Colonial administration and a score of other subjects are being demanded. The Oxford and Cambridge colleges could not meet the requests coming in from a variety of sources immediately before the war. I speak with some knowledge of the Oxford colleges but not quite in the same way, of course, of colleges at Cambridge.
We appreciate what my right hon. Friend said, that Clause 93 gives the Minister powers to assist bodies which are engaged in these enterprises. Hitherto, under the adult education regulations—and this is the point which my hon. Friend was making—it was impossible to assist anything, except specific classes with so many people meeting so many times a week. This was the difficulty which faced us at the beginning of the war when we started C.E.M.A., and the only way to meet it was to get the Pilgrim Society to put up the money, and the Government went fifty-fifty. I think the money is provided on the Board of Education Vote. Concerts, drama and picture exhibitions are being assisted in a very indirect way at very little cost—100,000—and most of it is guaranteed. The money circulates. The guarantors are very rarely called on and an enormous stimulus has been given in the mining villages of South Wales and Lancashire and elsewhere, where Dame Sybil Thorndike and dramatic groups have gone.
The principle is conceded. It is no longer necessary to assist six people sitting in a class with so many lectures. We now do the thing on a bigger basis. I do not want to say a word against local

authority and voluntary work, but, with assistance on a national basis, much can be done by my right hon. Friend by enlightened day-to-day administration. I ask the President of the Board of Education to take steps to set up a department within the Board worthy of this subject. I ask him to obtain the best counsel—that is why I put down an Amendment—by appointing a small standing committee and not an advisory committee, one like the committee on secondary school examinations, as part of the executive of the Board. I ask him to set up something in the nature of a trust. I give as an example the Camps Corporation, which owns 31 camps; these are leased to local education authorities and to the camps themselves. This stimulus can be given to help to run residential colleges. At the same time, there is the need for new polytechnics and institutes of technology, with regard to which we are woefully behind. In most cases, local education authorities can supply the need, but more should be done on a regional and national basis.
If the President of the Board can give us an assurance on these points, we shall be satisfied for the moment. Now, and in the coming months, is the moment in history to seize the opportunity. Anybody who has been in and out among the troops in the last two or three years and has seen what is happening there, must feel that it is unique in our history. If we do not carry this sort of thing over into civil life, we shall be losing one of the most fruitful things learnt from the war. On those grounds, I heartily support my hon. Friend, and I hope for an assurance from the Minister.

Mr. James Griffiths: I was one of the far from few who were privileged late in life, after many years at work, through the generosity of my trade union, to enjoy two years at a residential college. It so happens that there are about six of my term at that residential college who are in this House of Commons, and I hope I may be permitted to say that, collectively, we have tried to make a contribution to the House which probably we should never have been able to make had it not been that our trade union took us out of the pits and sent us to a college for two years. To the end of my life I shall always be grateful to my trade union for that, among many


other things, because it was a wonderful experience. I hope, therefore, that the President will listen to the plea to which I want to add my voice. Here is a field of education and of service to the nation which, quite frankly, cannot be met by any of the orthodox institutions of the country. I believe what the Minister is doing in this Bill for the establishment of these young people's colleges—I very nearly used the phrase I suggested the other day—is going to make still more urgent the need for these residential colleges. These boys and girls will go to young people's colleges until they are 18 years of age. In many cases, when they are 17 or 18, they will begin to mature and they will desire and need colleges of this type. Therefore, I see a great new demand for residential colleges and I hope they will be made available.
Some few years ago a college of this kind was started in Wales, Harlech College, which the Minister and the Board of Education know very well, and it is doing extraordinary work. One of the greatest needs of democracy is to train leaders, and here is a great opportunity, which the University and other colleges cannot provide, to get hold of men and women who have already proved their mettle in the hard school of life. They have shown qualities of leadership which are very often not shown by young people in the colleges. But a young man or woman of. 18 or 20 in trade union or in local life shows qualities of leadership which can render great service to their people and to this nation. It would, indeed, be a tragedy if we do not, as a nation, provide opportunities for them, perhaps at 25 or 30 years of age, to train them for this work. I hope, therefore, that the plea made to-day will be listened to by the Minister, and that provision will be made for the Board to assist directly these institutions Which have a niche to fill in our educational life which no other institution can do. I know that from my own experience, and I add my voice very sincerely to the plea put forward.

Sir Percy Harris: I only want to say a few words, as time is precious, in support of the speeches opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster). What has been done in the war is to a large extent pioneer work, although an hon. Member has suggested that something similar has been done in certain

limited parts of the country. I am going to suggest that when the soldiers come pouring back into civil life and civil occupations thousands of them will wish to go, not to ordinary schools or evening institutes provided by local authorities, but to something of the character so well pictured by the last speaker. If that is frustrated because the sole initiative has to come from local authorities, then there will be a great feeling of disappointment. I would like to hold up the hands of the President of the Board in anything he can do in this direction. I am in favour of working through the local authorities in a great town like London, where they are able to do this kind of work, and I could tell the Committee of one or two remarkable experiments done in London by the great County Council. It is, however, quite different in the provinces, and I suggest it would be a good thing if the President could make a sympathetic announcement as a result of this discussion.

Mr. Colegate: I sympathise with the point of view of the last few speakers, and I want to direct my attention for a few moments to the question more particularly of technical education. There is an Amendment on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for the Abbey Division of Westminster (Sir H. Webbe) and myself and others which, I think, was not taken because it was out of Order, but it raises on this Clause a most important question. I would like to draw attention to the fact that we were considering technologists of the highest grade. One of the facts that has to be faced very frankly about technical education in this country is that, taking it by and large, it is not of a very high grade, and actually in many cases the students have extremely disappointing experiences when they come to apply for posts in the particular trade or profession for which they have taken their technical training.
It has been my duty to see candidates for employment of the very highest type in technical matters, particularly chemistry, and always we have the same disappointing experience. The highest type invariably come from practically three universities, Oxford, Cambridge and London, and scores of students who have been to technical institutions are "half-baked" and fit to be, as chemistry is practised to-day, little more than what we


call "lab. boys," that is, laboratory assistants. The need, therefore, in these schemes of further education is to see that the technical students have further opportunities really to complete their technical education, and be able to equip themselves for the very highest posts that may be available to them in that profession. It was for that reason that we particularly mentioned the possibility of the Minister making grants for the enlargement, equipment and maintenance of existing institutions because, owing to the development of modem applied science, the equipment of the technical school or laboratory to-day is an extremely expensive matter indeed. Many local authorities have not the resources, and could not possibly have resources at the present time, to provide the equipment and training which are needed now. Therefore, I urge the President, in connection with Clause 40 providing for schemes of further education, to have in mind the necessity both for the students themselves, and for that industry on which we are going to place and are placing such heavy burdens, to provide for the schemes in which we are also interested. I hope he will see that schemes are initiated and promoted, and assisted and developed, so that we may turn out in adequate numbers those who are fully equipped to take the fullest share and the highest posts that may be available in all the different techical departments of industry, which are rapidly growing, and are the basis upon which the whole future progress of industry in this country depends.

Mr. Butler: To-day is one of those days on which we have a great deal of ground to cover, and this opening Debate is on a subject which has been mentioned before but never quite in the same atmosphere in which we are considering it to-day. Perhaps at this stage I might indicate the entire agreement of the Government with the observations that have been made, and make one or two statements which I hope will be reassuring. I would not wish, of course, to prevent anybody else from stating their view, but I would remind the Committee that there is a great deal of territory to cover to-day and, therefore, we must be as modest as we can in our observations.
Subject to what anybody else may say after I sit down, I would like to make

it quite clear that the necessary powers are in this Bill to obtain a system of adult education suitable to the needs of a great and victorious democracy such as we shall be at the end of this war. That is quite clear to my mind. Not all the powers are included in Clause 40, but they are included in other parts of the Bill—the Grant Clauses and in Clause 1.
In answer to the specific request made by the hon. Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster) who has taken such an interest in this matter, it would be possible, even in the case where the initiative did not come from the districts and areas of England, for the Minister himself to take the initiative and see that there was that string of colleges necessary in order to carry out the great work which the hon. Member has in mind. I must add to that general observation that it would be our desire that adult education should spring up to meet the needs of areas. The advantage of Sub-section (5) is that it enables those bodies interested in areas to get together. Reference has been made to local education authorities. It may well be that the area of adult education is wider than the area of a specific local education authority, and, therefore, for the first time, there are adequate powers in the Bill for the purpose of correlating the work of local education authorities. May I say here that I hope local education authorities will come more into this sphere than they have done hitherto. The universities have, in many cases, done their best, and I hope they will be brought in as well as other great voluntary organisations and bodies, which I will not specify in detail because I might pick out some and leave others out, but some of which have been mentioned already in the course of the Debate to-day.
One hopes, therefore, that the development will be a partnership, but what a vista there is before the Committee, what immense opportunity. The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) is quite right in drawing attention to the fact that education very often comes best when one has grown up. It does not end then but begins. That is the feeling of many of us who have taken part in lecturing or dealing with students. We know perfectly well that very often the perception of the child, the knowledge, the test of day-to-day life, the knowledge it has of the history and circumstances of its own time, is not sufficiently developed until it is grown up


and is able to imbibe the full value of education in its broadest sense. Therefore, this Bill does not hesitate simply at the brink of the grown-up circle, but goes right on to the growing man and growing woman, enabling them to grow even better towards opportunities for service for that great democracy in which they are going to live. Therefore, I can assure the Committee that the Government are watching with the closest attention the development of the adult education experiments in the Forces at the present time. I have them perpetually before me, and I am watching with the greatest interest the steps being taken by my right hon. Friends the Ministers of the Service Departments and those who are working so ably with them.
There is no doubt that there is something new brewing in this country, something of which we are not all fully aware, something great and noble and worthy of our history. It seems to me vital that those of us who are in responsible positions should use these great times to the advantage of our country, and not misinterpret them or misuse them. There is always great danger if we interfere now that we may misuse them. What do the Government suggest therefore? The Government suggest that we should not at once adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay), because we feel that we must see how this leaven is going to work a little more, see how these experiments in the Forces develop before we decide finally on the lines of national advance. Therefore, while I could not undertake in the actual Debate to-day that we should have any particular form of Committee, or any particular form of advisory body, I can say that this is a matter which is right in the front of the mind of the Government as a whole, and many of our colleagues are assisting me in examining it. I trust that, as the policy develops, we may be able in the course of our experiments to say more, but I can say this, that the Advisory Council which is set up in the first part of the Bill should certainly be seized of this vital transformation. It is a matter which I think we should have in mind when selecting the membership of the Advisory Council. It is one point on which I do not see why they should not animadvert at the earliest stage. I can give the undertaking that from the top we shall supplement local initiative, where it is insufficient.
I would like to refer to one or two points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate). This Bill gives absolutely new and definite powers, in Sub-section (3) of this Clause, to deal with technical education. It gives powers to the Minister to direct that measures should be taken to give effect to a scheme. It is very wrong that in so many parts of England, particularly in industrial areas, which I have visited myself, that decades have been allowed to elapse before the technical development necessary for education in those areas has come to anything at all. There are many towns and cities I have been to in which the technical college has always been the mirage in the distance across the other side of the desert. We cannot allow that state of affairs to go on, and that is why we insist that there should be a proper development of technical education. The hon. Gentleman referred to the need for a supply of expert technologists. Compared to our competitors, friends and enemies, we shall be a small country when this war is over and we shall depend more than anything else on the skill of our people. I therefore welcome this opportunity to say that we must concentrate upon producing the most highly-skilled technologists the world can show. I hope the Minister will use his powers to achieve that end.
It is my intention that the whole question of the relationship of the universities and technical colleges shall be more closely examined, and it is also my intention that a Departmental Committee shall be set up to examine this question at the earliest possible date. Looking at this matter from the point of view of the students, I have been impressed when they have spoken to me of their feelings towards their technical college, which have differed very little from the feelings which students may have towards their university college or university. I think it is important from the point of view of the students that this matter should be further investigated, and before long I hope to be announcing to the House or the Committee a further investigation which I hope myself to initiate into this important matter. I hope the Committee will now let us have this Clause, realising that the Government are not only fired with the ambition to develop adult education but have the powers to do so, are


not frightened of central direction but wish to proceed by examining what is going on, and wish to encourage local effort and partnership between those principally concerned.

Mr. Loftus: I do not wish to detain the Committee for more than a few moments, but on the question of adult education there are two points I wish to make. In Denmark you have the finest possible example of adult education in the people's colleges there. These colleges were founded by two progressive-thinking individuals and they made a most interesting experiment. They first had young people of 16 in these colleges and they then raised the age to 18 and discovered that they got infinitely more value from the people of that age than from the people of 16. That is a tremendous fact which we must realise, and I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to give an assurance that the Danish system will be studied and that, possibly, representatives of his Advisory Councils will make a thorough investigation into that system. My second point is that these things will take years to get completely going. After the war we shall be left with a number of magnificent aerodromes and buildings which could be used for living accommodation. I fear that they may be used for all sorts of purposes or scrapped, and I would like some of them to be earmarked for future developments in connection with adult education. I think that is of immense importance, because these buildings are admirably equipped for such a purpose.

Mr. Harvey: The Committee has listened with great satisfaction to the President's statement and to the spirit in which he made it, revealing his deep interest in the development not only of technical education but of adult education. But I hope that before we part with this Clause he may be able to go a little further. This Clause allows local education authorities great freedom in assisting educational developments and such adult education as that given in residential colleges. It enjoins co-operation and consultation with local authorities adjoining an education authority. But this local action is not sufficient as a basis. The residential colleges we want to see developed ought to be able to draw their students from a wide area, far beyond that of the local educa-

tion authority and the adjoining authorities. It is desirable to have these smaller institutions inside the area of the various authorities, but even that is not enough. We ought to have colleges which will bring students from all over the country. Some twenty years ago, I had the opportunity of acting for a short time as principal of one of these colleges, during which there were students from Wales and from Northern and Central England, one or two from Denmark and from Germany, and another from Austria. It is the wide area from which these students come that will help to make the life of the college and build up the widening interest of the students. I am sure the President wants to encourage this development. To do that we must not wait for local authorities to act.
The powers this Clause gives only begin to come into operation in 18 months' time at the earliest. We need to be acting now, if we are deal with the immense numbers of people who will be released from the Forces, let us hope many of them long before that time. Even to-day, young men who have been wounded and who are unable to take part in industry are longing to have the chance of education in some of the simple colleges such as those described so movingly by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). We want the President to give such an opportunity for a large number in the immediate future and that can only be done if he himself will act. I want him to encourage local authorities to act; we must not wait until they have felt their way tentatively one after another. If the Minister would promise that he would start a few of these pioneer colleges, or help to start a few, it would give the greatest encouragement to the whole adult educational movement.

Mr. Woods: I think the Committee will appreciate the statement made by the Minister, but the very fact that it was necessary to make such a statement indicates that the aspirations to which he gave expression are not so clear in the Bill. After all, we are here as legislators. Maybe the day will come when there will be bitter controversy about these matters again, with the result that it will be difficult to implement some of these aspirations. I would like to see some of these aspirations put into a form of words in the Bill, so that not only the Minister's


successors but local authorities would know that they formed part of the laws of the land and that obligations were upon them. There are many voluntary organisations which are operated nationally and which have to deal with innumerable local authorities. In some areas they get a warm welcome, but in others they get the cold shoulder. Words must be put into the Bill to ensure that they must shoulder the responsibilities. The fermentation which the Minister mentioned must be solidified otherwise, like Vesuvius at the moment, it will erupt and—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): I am placed in a difficulty, because I have heard so many expressions of opinion that we ought to get on with this Amendment. If there are many more speeches like the hon. Member's speech then, like Vesuvius, they will be floating over the bounds of Order. I would ask hon. Members to try to keep their speeches brief.

Mr. Woods: Some of us are very keen about this matter. We have been good boys; we have not taken up much time of the Committee.

The Deputy-Chairman: I made a mistake. I said "Amendment," when I should have said, "Clause," but I am still of the opinion that it would be as well to keep strictly to what is in the Clause itself.

Mr. Woods: Sub-section (5) of this Clause states:
… shall consult with any such bodies as aforesaid"—
That means organisations and voluntary organisations and so on. The development which will be most helpful and practical is the development of the community centres which, while primarily concerned with recreation and physical training, will, in the future, do substantial educational work. Again, experience up and down the country is very diverse. In some areas—for example, the Middlesex County Council—which also deals with finance, there is 100 per cent. encouragement, but in many other areas, often rural areas, where the need is far greater, especially because of changes of population during the last decade or so, new areas have become populated where there are no amenities or facilities. Very often the local authorities in those areas are the most backward in providing, or assisting

in providing, such facilities. I should like to see in the implementation of the Minister's ideals something really concrete dealing with this aspect of the problem.

Mr. Lipson: I hope my right hon. Friend by now has realised two things with regard to the Clause. The first is that it raises a matter about which the Committee are vitally interested. They believe that this question of adult education is one of the most important matters with which a Bill can deal. Secondly, they are perfectly happy about the statement that he has made, but what is' concerning them is the practical steps that will be taken to implement those aspirations. My right hon. Friend always makes admirable statements—he has made a very large number on the Bill—but many of us are passionately anxious that some positive results should come, therefore we should like to be told how Parliament is going to be kept informed as to the practical steps that are to be taken to make the very great advance in residential colleges or adult education which we ought to make. We have much leeway to make up and this, we feel, is the right time. One determining factor in the progress of setting up these residential colleges will be, Who is going to find the money? If you leave it to the local authorities, with their many other claims, I am afraid progress will be slow

Mr. S. O. Davies: I want to make an appeal to the Minister not to dissipate his resources. Appeals have been made to him to support almost all kinds of voluntary and partly voluntary educational bodies. Those bodies have come into existence in the past simply because of the vast imperfections that existed in our educational system. I hope that when the Bill becomes law the Minister will regard it as one complete whole, having sufficient powers within itself, and sufficient drive within the Board of Education, to give us a complete, coherent educational system, so that these many isolated and unrelated voluntary and partly voluntary bodies will have no cause for their work within a scheme of this kind. My fear is that the Minister may perhaps give too much latitude to bodies of that kind. The Clause gives him immense powers in correlating and co-ordinating the whole of our educational system, because he starts with nurseries and goes right up to adult education, university colleges and so on


and, if he succeeds in evolving one complete, co-ordinated scheme, there will be no room for most of these voluntary bodies and it will not be necessary for him to pay attention-to them. The more of such bodies that exist the greater the evidence that the scheme will be imperfect. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not be drawn overmuch by these appeals to give education to people on charitable grounds. I have heard him say that education is to be the. inalienable right of every child and young man and woman who has the capacity to profit by it.

Mr. Linstead: I have felt that the best service one could perform to the Bill is to listen rather than to speak.

Mr. Butler: To vote, too.

Mr. Linstead: I agree with my right hon. Friend. But before we part with the Clause there are one or two remarks that ought to be made, in particular on Subsection (5), and the effect it may have upon the educational policies of some qualifying bodies. I am thinking of such bodies as the Royal Institution of British Architects or the Mechanical or Electrical Engineers, who conduct national examinations but who apparently are left out of consultation in respect of schemes to be prepared under the Clause. I hope my right hon. Friend will find it possible to give some reassurance to these organisations that schemes of further education, in so far as they affect their examinations, can be brought into relation with the national policies which those qualifying bodies adopt. At present it looks as though courses may be started in preparation for the examinations of those Institutions without the Institutions themselves necessarily being brought into consultation.
The other remark that I wish to make relates in particular to the provision for additional technological facilities for teaching and research. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Colegate) said that many of the products of our technical schools are "half-baked." I am sure he will agree that the miracle is that they are baked at all, because the circumstances in which so many people, after a heavy day's work, go night after night to technical colleges is a matter for admiration rather than anything else. The research facilities in our technical schools are poor. When

one compares what is done in Germany with what is done in this country, one sees how much more there is to be done. I am sure we shall have welcomed the remarks my right hon. Friend made, and particularly his proposal to set up some form of inquiry into the relations between the technical colleges and the Universities. It is not merely a question of bringing the standing of the technical colleges near to the standing of the Universities, it is also co-ordinating the work between the two types of institution, because then.; are technical colleges doing university work and universities doing technical college work and the two things want ironing out.

Mr. George Griffiths: I am entirely opposed to what my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr (Mr. S. O. Davies) has said. I do not know where he has got it from. I am going to ask the Minister to give a full opportunity to the Workers' Educational Association to give him the value of their experience during the years in which they have been propounding education. I am one of the "half-baked" that the last speaker referred to. I attended the W.E.A. for a number of years, and I am glad I went there. I left school at 11½ and went to work in the pit. I had no chance of education. When I came out of the pit I was too tired for anything of the kind. I took up W.E.A. education when about 20 years of age. There were nights when I fell asleep there. I am ashamed to say so, but it was because of the work that I had done. For that reason I did not derive the value from it that I should otherwise have done. I ask the Minister to give the W.E.A. an opportunity of giving their experience all over the country.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: One thing has occurred to me in connection with the assurance the Minister has given. Any of us are happy to accept any assurance that he gives us, but it is not quite the same thing when one has perhaps to argue on his behalf in one's constituency. When this point is raised and we say it is perfectly all right because the President of the Board of Education has given an assurance on the point, the answer is apt to be put to us "Why is it not in the Bill?" If the President could see any way in which to incorporate the gist of his assurance, even


in the briefest way, I am sure it would be a very great relief to vast numbers of people and bodies who are intensely interested in this question of further education. The next point is with regard to the inspiration that is necessary to get this thing going. I share the view that it is essential for that inspiration to come from the Minister. It is going to be very difficult indeed for local education authorities to derive the necessary inspiration. It will be sufficient to quote one reason alone. I represent a very large agricultural and rural area. I will not emulate the activity of Vesuvius and overflow beyond the limit of endurance, but in the agricultural industry we want to attract more people to be educated in colleges such as those to be provided under the Clause. We are not likely to attract to agriculture the children of industrial people who have been bred in towns and industries if they are required to go to colleges which have been set up in their own locality by their own local education authority. On the other hand, the local education authorities of rural areas can hardly be expected to set up colleges for persons from the industrial areas. Therefore, if the scheme is to be worked out to its full advantage and to the best effect for both town and country districts, it has to be inspired from the Minister himself.

Major Woolley: The Minister has been helpful to the Committee in making his statement, but may I ask him to help the Committee a little further? It is the view of the Committee that something concrete should be put into the Bill. It is not enough that good intentions should be expressed or that the Minister should merely keep Parliament informed. It is the desire of the Committee that something should be put into the Bill, and it would meet the wishes of the Committee if the Minister would say where in the Bill our desires may be realised.

Mr. Muff: I intervene to protest against what the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Linstead) said.

Mr. Gallacher: It has already been protested against.

Mr. Muff: The hon. Member described the output of secondary schools and evening institutes as "half-baked."

Mr. Linstead: The hon. Gentleman is doing me much less than justice. If he

had listened to what I said, he would have heard me say it was a mistake on the part of another hon. Member to describe these people as half-baked. I was standing up for them.

Mr. Muff: I withdraw unreservedly. In the North of England, by which I mean South of the Tweed and North of the Trent, we did something for evening institutes and from my experience I know that we did it well. In the system of evening classes we have something of which we have nothing to be ashamed—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) is full of verbosity, and I wish he would allow me to speak for two minutes; this is the first time I have intervened in the Committee stage of this Bill. It is highly important that we should have, from both the centre and the local authorities, every encouragement given to evening continuation classes and to these new colleges. Some of the Yorkshire M.P.'s were able to visit industrial concerns like Messrs. Newton, Chambers and Company, at Chapel-ton, Sheffield. That firm gives every encouragement to young people in their employ to do something to develop their personalities and to understand just what the firm is doing. That concern is performing a great public service, and I hope that we shall encourage such activities. I would remind the hon. Member for Putney that the Bradford Technical College was the first municipal technical college of its kind in the country, and it was the first to encourage preparation for the diploma in pharmaceutical chemistry. We are proud of that. The Scientific Committee of this House has paid a great tribute to it and pointed out that it is a pattern for a real type of university for the masses. I want to encourage the Minister to do everything he can to spread this evening institute work on the broadest possible lines.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 41.—(Young people's colleges.)

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 33, line 10, after "determine," to insert:
not later than three years after the date of the commencement of this Part of this Act.
This is the Amendment to which I referred in my speech on the question of


raising the age to 16 by a certain date. I then said that the Government would move an Amendment to Clause 41 which would enable young people's colleges to be brought in with rather more certainty and at a rather earlier date than was provided for by the rather general provisions of the Bill. It is necessary in explaining the significance of this Amendment to read it in conjunction with an Amendment which is down in my name to Clause 99 which, in exceedingly technical language, has this significance. The Amendment I am moving does not mean that the instructions to the local authorities to establish young people's colleges are related to Part II of the Act, but that the colleges have to be established not later than three years after the school age has been raised to 15. The Amendment to Clause 99 refers to the Order which may postpone the raising of the age to 15 for not more than two years. In the event of the Government being obliged to introduce such an Order this provision would follow three years after that. I only raise these legal points so that hon. Members will not be confused when we come to Clause 99, which I sincerely hope we shall reach to-day, although it is very unlikely at our present rate of progress. That is the legal significance of the Amendment. The importance of it otherwise arises from this: The Committee will remember that provision was made in the Fisher Act for the introduction of this very form of continuation education, and except in one instance, and one or two other instances under the aegis of industry, that Act has been a dead letter in this respect. This Amendment is, therefore, an improvement on that Act. It takes into consideration the point of view of the next three Amendments on the Paper—
In line 10, after "determine," insert:
not being a date later than one year after that at which the school-leaving age is raised to fifteen years of age.
In line after "determine," insert:
not being later than one year after the date of the commencement of this Part of this Act.
In line 10, after "determine," insert:
not being later than two years after that at which the school-leaving age is raised to fifteen years of age.
It does not do the thing quite so fast as hon. Members submitting these Amend-

ments would like. Two of the Amendments ask for one year and one for two years. I say three years, and if the Government can come as near to hon. Members as that, I hope they will think we are generous. It would be possible under our Amendment for the Minister to give instructions before the end of three years. We want to place a limit so that the Minister cannot be dilatory in giving this instruction to local authorities to establish their colleges. The Amendment tightens up the Bill and advances this vital reform. In the event of circumstances not making it possible to raise the age to 16 for some time ahead, the Amendment means that children of 15 will be more easily able to be catered for in the young people's colleges, or whatever we decide eventually to call them. Therefore, there will not be a gap, and by the Amendment the education service will range from nursery schools right up to the age of 18. We are thus doing our best to introduce the reforms as quickly as possible. On the last occasion when I referred to this Amendment, I said that the matter was not mentioned by those who did not do me the honour of following my advice in the recent Debate, but I hope that 'to-day hon. Members will appreciate that the Government intend to press forward with these reforms and that the only reason why we are not able to accept every piece of advice given us by the Committee is that so many responsibilities are placed on our shoulders. Only to-day we have had pressed upon us the need for developing education over the vast range of the adult sphere. We have so many priorities, but we are keen to give a distinct and definite place to the young people's colleges.

The Deputy-Chairman: This Amendment can be taken to cover 'the points raised in certain other Amendments mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman which are not being selected.

Mr. Gallaeher: I want to ask the Minister whether he would add the further words after his Amendment, "or if an Order in Council postpones it to one year after this Part comes into operation." That would mean that whatever happens it will come into operation in 1948. As it stands now, if an Order in Council under a later Clause postpones the raising of the school-leavng age to 15, it can be held up to 1950.

Mr. Butler: I should like to meet the hon. Gentleman, but the reason I cannot do so is that we do not want to take every one of our educational steps in one year, owing to the burden it would place on local authorities. If I thought that local authorities could do everything at once, I would accept the suggestion.

Mr. Cove (Aberavon): I wish the Government had been as consistent about raising the school-leaving age to 16 as they are about further education. There is the touch of the Ministry of Labour about this more than the touch of the Ministry of Education. I want to make this observation to my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee. The more deeply impressed the system of further education becomes on the basis of a low leaving age, the more difficult it will be to raise the leaving age. If there is to be continuation or further education; it is clear that vested interests will grow up, and it will make it much more difficult to raise the leaving age to 16. In other words, if further education is to be built on a leaving age of 14 plus, or 15, then, when the system has been erected on that basis, it will be infinitely more difficult to raise the age to i6. Further education does not provide equality of opportunity. It is spare time education, and the more it is developed the further will recede the real equalitarian educational system I want to see. I want my hon. Friends on this side to realise that in urging this they are in danger of causing a real equalitarian system of education to recede.

Mr. Lindsay: I took a rather strong line earlier in the week on this matter, but now I want to add only a few words. The moment to discuss what we want in secondary education will come on Clause 59, when we shall be considering the abolition of fees. I want to urge my right hon. Friend to begin now with the preparations. It is no good our putting in "two" or "three" years or anything else, unless the personnel for these colleges, or whatever they are going to be called, are beginning to be earmarked now. I cannot lay too much stress on this point. I am certain that every day we are losing potential teachers and leaders for these colleges. I understand that those who are pursuing courses at Durham, Newcastle and Bristol are given very little encouragement that the courses will count to their advantage

when these young people's colleges come into being. Why cannot we begin now to build up a cadre of people?
As for the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) I hope there will be a place in this Bill on which he and I can come together. I beg him to believe that there can grow up a most fruitful relationship, which has hardly yet started in this country, between industry and education. We ought to begin to develop it very soon, and if we postpone raising the school leaving age to 16, we shall have to do it. I welcome what the Minister is doing in having these discussions. At Question time there were three Questions on mining, cotton, and pre-service units. Every time I saw the Minister of Labour answering I wished almost that it was the President of the Board of Education who was doing so, because those Questions dealt fundamentally with pre-service for industry, see the Minister of Agriculture sitting on the Front. Bench. Precisely the same thing is going to happen in agriculture. Thank Heaven the Luxmoore Report has been turned down as far as children under 18 are concerned. The Minister of Agriculture is going to build up a fruitful relationship between farmers and the young farmers' clubs. I beg him to get on with that job. He has got a very large body of opinion behind him among educationists. Then we can build up a proper system of secondary education which the hon. Lady the Member for East Islington (Mrs. Cazalet Keir) and I equally want.

Amendment agreed to.

Commander King-Hall: I beg to move, in page 33, line 45, at the end, to add:
(5) On and after such date as His Majesty may by Order in Council determine, but not later than twelve months after the date specified in Subsection (1) of Section forty-one, the local education authority in whose area the Houses of Parliament are situated shall establish and maintain an additional young people's college reasonably adjacent to the Houses of Parliament. This College to be known as 'Parliament College.'
(6) The Minister shall make such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that delegated young people chosen by ballot from all young peoples colleges shall attend the Parliament College for courses of instruction of not less than one week in the working of democracy as exemplified by the day to day activities of Parliament.
The Amendment embodies an idea which, I hope, will engage the sympathy


of the President of the Board of Education, and of the Committee. It is designed to introduce some fun into education, despite the slightly grim Clauses of the Bill. I think that the only education that is worth while is education that is fun, is exciting and thrilling; but there is nothing very joyous in the Bill. If the Government will accept the idea expressed in the Amendment we shall take a step in the direction of brightening up education to some extent. To the Committee, I would observe that my proposals are to link up educational joy in the Bill with interest in the proceedings of Parliament. I hope to make good this rather bold and startling claim, and I trust that the Committee will give me five minutes in which to do so. This is a new idea which I am trying to embody in the Bill.
I assume that part of the time at the young people's colleges will be devoted to what is rather grimly called education for citizenship. One of the most important aspects of education for citizenship is what I have referred to before as the question of the public relations of Parliament. I mean by this, arousing the interest of the people of this country in the proceedings of Parliament. If they are to take a personal interest in our proceedings, obviously they must know something about how Parliament works and about the electoral system. I take it for granted that some part of the instruction at the colleges will be devoted to these kinds of subjects.
The purpose of my Amendment is to try to make that instruction interesting, imaginative, alive, and practicable. If hon. Members turn to the Amendment, they will see that I propose that there should be established a special youth college close to the Houses of Parliament and that that youth college should be called "The Parliament College." I have not specified that it should be in Westminster, for the reasons that I think, first of all, that it would be out of Order for me to suggest to the Minister that he should give specific direction to a local authority, and secondly, because I wanted to cover the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) who, if he formed a Government, would move Parliament out to the suburbs. I believe that is one of the planks of his programme. I suggest that in each youth college throughout the country there

should be held from time to time—, obviously the Committee will not want me to go into details—an election among the young people, broadly on the lines of a by-election. Candidates shall issue short addresses, and make speehces. They are to be candidates for two vacancies for a week's course down here at the Parliamentary College adjacent to the Houses of Parliament. There would be a week in London during which the successful candidates would come down for a course in Parliamentary methods and the House of Commons. No doubt there would be other attractions. Perhaps they would be able to get a cup of tea, if nothing stronger, with their Member.
In the Parliamentary College they would have lectures on the procedure of Parliament, and they could come here and listen to Debates. I hope one day would be devoted to showing them round the notable sights of London. I am sure there would be plenty of candidates in youth colleges for those two places in the Parliament College at Westminster. When the successful candidates returned to their own places, they would be able to tell their fellow members at the youth colleges what they had seen. By degrees we should have an increasing number of young people all over the country who had seen Parliament at work, and they would be missionaries spreading abroad the right ideas about this great institution.

Mr. Gallagher: I would be in favour of this proposal on one condition only. The condition is that the young men who came to Westminster—[HON. MEMBERS: "And young women"]—were capable of influencing feeling among the young people whom they had left behind, and that they would come to the sensible decision that the House of Commons should go to the college and that the college should come to the House of Commons. If that were agreed to, I would accept this Amendment.

Mr. Butler: I am sure that we all feel very flattered at the suggestion made in the Amendment. I feel certain that if young people were to come here and listen to our Debates, they would be signally edified, particularly by the speeches that have been made on the Education Bill. If we were to accept the hon. and gallant Member's Amendment it would be necessary in the proposed rebuilding of the House of


Commons, to construct special and spacious galleries to which these young people could come. I feel sure that the hon. Member will put that idea forward in the proper quarter, because now is the time to do so, when the contemplated plans are in preparation. Now is the time for the young people to come and profit by our Debates.
Seriously, I would say that the hon. and gallant Member has done a great service to Parliament in spreading a knowledge of our Debates and activities, particularly in connection with HANSARD. There is nothing that can better enable people to understand Parliament and appreciate the duties and wonder of our institution than to realise that in our procedure we have the greatest opportunity for preserving the liberties of the citizens and the liberties of democracy. That is the experience of every new Member who comes from a by-election to this House. We gradually see him assimilating himself to the wisdom, dignity and atmosphere of this Assembly. Even the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) himself, who is so great a master of Parliamentary technique, is no exception. Therefore, it is a most desirable idea that young people in these colleges should become acquainted with the life and practice of Parliament. Unfortunately, Ministers have to apply themselves to the practical considerations that are present in an Amendment. What are the practical considerations in this case? These young people will be released for only one day a week from industry, by their employers, to-attend these colleges. I really cannot, in the first place, encourage by-elections to be held in colleges for the very short periods within which these young people will attend these colleges. The very word "by-election" causes a nausea in the hearts of most of us. [An HON. MEMBER: "Only on the Government benches."] The results of by-elections are divided among the different parties; sometimes one side wins and sometimes another. Surely the short release that these young people will have from industry must be devoted to physical or mental recreation and improvement. I do not think any of us would include a by-election as either physical or mental recreation and improvement. The very basis of the hon. Gentleman's Amendment falls to the ground. The machinery which he suggests for sending young people here would not be work-

able. It would, indeed, be difficult to choose them.
The latter part of the Amendment would cause the authority, in whose area these noble Houses exist, to erect this college and I must ask the hon. Member whether he has approached the authority in question and whether they view with equanimity the proposal which he has put forward. I am not a dictator in education and I must work with local education authorities. I am not at all clear, from such researches as I have been able to make, that the local authority in question would be desirous of establishing a college of this kind. On the purely practical side I find difficulty in accepting the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. I feel sure that the Committee would wish the education system of the country to be so framed that young people may profit by it. Therefore, in order that these young people's colleges may be set up, I think it is necessary for me to draw to an end. Unless I finish speaking, we cannot get the Clause and, in the interests of the young people, I suggest that the best service the hon. and gallant Member can render is to withdraw his Amendment to enable us to get the Clause. By enabling us to get the Clause, he enables us to set up young people's colleges. Once they are set up, they can decide whether they want to come to London and see us. I hope they will do so, and the more of them who come, the better.

Mr. Maxton: I intervene here only because I have been twice dragged into the discussion. With reference to the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) I can only say that if the necessary amenities of Parliament are to be developed so that young people can have an opportunity of seeing our proceedings it cannot be done on the basis of the House being rebuilt on its present site. It is absolutely necessary to build it in some part of the country where greater opportunity can be afforded. As to the remarks of the Minister, and whether being a Member of Parliament has entirely broken me on the wheel, I know perfectly well that the House of Commons has a reputation, expressed by the old-fashioned sergeant-major, who used to say: "We can tame lions here."
I know it is said that the House of Commons can, in the course of time, slowly and surely destroy the fighting


spirit of any rebel who comes into its precincts and remains a sufficiently long time. May I say in reply to that, using another aphorism of the sergeant-major—who seems to me to have acquired a great deal of worldly wisdom in the course of his historic experience—when he said to the recruit, "You broke your mother's heart but you will not break mine."

Commander King-Hall: I would like to tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have already put the necessary evidence before the appropriate quarter as to an increase of the size of the Gallery. I want to make this one point. I am sometimes, sincerely, rather disturbed by the attitude taken by some hon. Members of almost shameful embarrasment that the public should really take a sincere interest in Parliament. I feel very strongly about this. It is absolutely essential for the welfare of democracy and the future of the great institution of Parliament that with due regard to dignity Parliament should pay an increasing degree of attention to the question of its public relations. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Henry Brooke: I will certainly respond to the Minister's appeal that we should not delay the passing of this Clause or the setting up of the young people's colleges, for I have never concealed that in my opinion they are one of the most important elements in this great measure of reform. There is only one point to which I wish to draw the attention of the Committee. I know that many people outside this House are concerned about it, and I hope that the Minister will relieve their anxiety. There is, it appears to them, a contrast between the very wide words "moral, mental and physical" in Clause 7 of the Bill and the narrower "physical, practical and vocational" in this Clause 41. That might convey the idea that possibly morality is something which Parliament expects boys and girls to put behind them at the age of 15 and i6 when they leave school. I am quite sure that that is not what the Minister himself did, or what he wishes the boys and girls of the future to do.

It would be, in fact, permissible under this Clause that at a young people's college education should be given about purely material things in a purely materialistic spirit. I am certain that that is not the Minister's intention. May I express to him the hope that in the Regulations, which this Clause empowers him to make as regards the form of education to be given in these young people's colleges, he will allay any such fears as have been raised?

Mr. G. A. Morrison: I rise merely to ask the President if he will be good enough to bear in mind the suggestion made in the Second Reading Debate by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich (Sir G. Shakespeare). He feels that there is some confusion in people's minds as to the objects and the possibilities of these new young people's colleges, and I should like to ask the Minister that before he issues definite Regulations for the conduct of the colleges he should quite early in the day issue to local authorities some kind of guiding circular making dear what these objects and possibilities are.

Mr. Butler: I can respond as far as the last request is concerned by saying that I have been encouraging the production of some guidance to all concerned in the initiation of this great scheme of young people's colleges. When I am in a position to satisfy my hon. Friend I will tell him, and communicate the results to the House. What would be desirable would be for the Board, as it has done in many other branches of education, to give some lead by way of suggestion on how this scheme might be initiated. With reference to what was said by the hon. Member for Lewisham (Mr. Brooke) he will be the first to realise that the time these young people will have at these colleges will be very limited indeed. We must remember that when we consider the curriculum or any subject, however important it may be. He has raised a subject which always arouses the maximum of interest, and we trust it will not, in this sphere, arouse the maximum of controversy. What I suggest to him and his friends, and I know he will accept this in the spirit in which I mention it, is that any approach to the question of giving instruction of the type to which he attaches so much importance, should be made by an inter-


denominational approach and should be encouraged outside the normal hours in which these children attend the college. In these directions certain experiments have taken place. There is no reason why others should not take place which would add that spiritual content to the life of these young people to which my hon. Friend attaches so much importance.

Mr. Gallather: I am glad that the Minister has put this Clause in the Bill. I believe that these continuation and vocational colleges will be of value. I believe it is necessary to ensure that the young people are educated, and this includes physical, practical and vocational training. The hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke) is concerned about the lack of moral training being associated with 'the colleges. I would like to say that I get more and more disgusted as I hear such representatives talking about morality and the danger of materialism, when their whole conception regarding this Bill has been to get all the money they possibly can. If it had not been for the hon. Member and his associates and their grabbing after cash in the most grossly materialistic manner, this Bill would have been through long ago. I cannot lose this opportunity of expressing my disgust—

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Cyril Entwistle): The hon. Member's remarks are now out of Order.

Sir P. Harris: I think it well that the Committee should remember, in respect of these colleges being called colleges, that they are only to be attended on one day of the week. If we are to try to put into this short opportunity for education, either a denominational education or a fixed syllabus, then they are doomed to failure. My view is that if they are to be a success there should be as great a freedom in the administration of these colleges by the local authorities as is possible. What is required is variety of syllabus. Above all, what is wanted is the opportunity of keeping contact with these young persons when they leave school. The idea that some people would seem to suggest that in one day a week's attendance a general adult education is to be given is a myth.
My enthusiasm for these colleges arises from the very fact that the educational

authorities are to continue personal contact and will be able to encourage these young people to attend evening classes and take advantage of other opportunities. By all means let the churches and chapels make arrangements for the religious education of these young persons. That will not be possible in the meagre syllabus which is possible under the one day a week attendance provided for. Therefore, I suggest that my hon. Friend, whose intentions are perfectly honourable and good, should not use these young people's colleges, with their very small opportunity, to do something which it is impossible for them to do. We bless this Clause in the Bill. I went through the tragedy of the old continuation schools, that great experiment that broke down after a few months. We want this to be a success. If hon. Members think they are going to use them for either a fixed syllabus or denominational education, these schools are foredoomed to failure, and I think that would be most unfortunate.

Mr. Piekthorn: With respect, I do not think that the Committee aught to part with this Clause without expressing its thanks to the last two speakers for having explained what has hitherto I been a mystery to the Committee. I did not previously understand, and I had not found anybody who understood, why these continuation schools were not to be called continuation schools. Now the two gentlemen opposite have explained that the reason is, of course, that they are continuation schools. I should like to express my disagreement—which I am sure is that of a very small minority but which I hope will be taken into some consideration—with the notion that everything which is good ought to be directly educated for. We have had speeches in favour of using these colleges for moral education and for political education. I invite the President and the Board not to make the assumption too easily that these are good things at which to aim directly in this way. There are many things in human life, many of the most important and valuable things, which cannot be got by aiming at them directly—which are, in their essence, byproducts. I suggest that once you start educating for citizenship, or morality, you have got very near to giving up education entirely in favour of a mere propaganda, and that it would be the


worst possible result of this administrative elaboration we are now entering to do anything of that kind.

Major Gates: As I think the Committee realises, I have a sense of urgency over this Bill. I am anxious to get on with it. I have not intervened to-day despite the fact that I have an Amendment on the Paper. I would like to ask whether the President of the Board can give us some sort of assurance that this point has not been lost sight of under the Clause, that although we may have to wait three years, as under the Amendment he has just moved, the attendance at these young people's colleges will not necessarily be limited forever to one day a week, and that we may hope for greater progress as soon as he sees the possibility?

The Temporary Chairman: I think that question arises on the next Clause.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: The question has been raised whether it is advisable to introduce either spiritual matters or citizenship in the curriculum. Whether the question came from this side or that side of the House, does not matter. I would not like to lay down what the curriculum should be, but I would say, very definitely, that it is not a matter of politics for a young citizen to learn how his town is governed. That would make for social progress, and it would effect what we have tried to do in the elementary schools. I believe that if we can only get every young person to spend three or four days a year in discussing local government—not how committees are run, but just how Acts of Parliament can be applied and used by the local authority—we shall get a very intelligent democracy. Then we shall get changes on the local and county councils which will be good for Britain.

Mr. Gallacher: It will be bad for the Tories.

Mr. Walkden: It will be bad for the Tories, it is true, but it will be good for the country, if our young folk understand how Parliament has given us this great inheritance of which we speak; and I believe that these continuation colleges will give our young folks an opportunity of understanding that.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 42.—(Duty to attend young people's colleges in accordance with college attendance notices.)

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I beg to move, in page 34, line 9, after "college," to insert:
within the area or within the area of an adjoining local education authority with whom arrangements have been made by the authority which served the notice.
I desire to expedite the progress of the Measure. I am anxious that this Amendment should be accepted, but I am also terrified lest it should be, for, judging from the attitude of the Committee to-day, the acceptance of an Amendment is merely an invitation to many hon. Members to contribute further, and still further, to the discussion of the Bill. This is a very simple matter. We realise that these young people's colleges are going to be centres fixed in the places where they will draw the young persons of the right ages. Speaking for my own part of the world, and trying to envisage the centre where a young people's college would be set up, I can see that their recruitment will transcend county boundaries, and that population is not centred upon places which can be sectioned out according to the ancient line of the county boundary. I am anxious that it shall be possible for young people to be sent to these colleges without regard to the exact geographical areas of the local education authorities. The President of the Board may be satisfied that that could be done. I have looked very carefully at the Bill, and, as I see it, it will not be possible for any arrangement to he made between adjoining authorities to direct young people to go to young people's colleges outside their own areas. I want to see these colleges successful, not only from the point of view of the young people but as budding centres of communal activity; and Where that communal activity transcends existing boundaries, there should be provision in the Bill for young people to be sent to the appropriate centres without regard to geographical boundaries. I ask that provision should be made, not necessarily in the terms of my Amendment, for young people's colleges to be fed from the areas from which the young people would normally come, without regard to existing boundaries.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Ede): The point which my hon. and learned Friend has raised is of very great practical importance. Failure to deal with it was undoubtedly one of the causes of the failure of the last attempt to found continuation schools. While my hon. and learned Friend's wording would, no doubt, have the desired result in his own part of the country, it would not be adequate to help us if we needed to apply the principle to the Greater London area. Take the case of a young person working in London and residing at East Ham, who desired to be directed to the young people's college where his fellows, with whom he associated at work, were under-going instruction. Such technical and vocational instruction as he would require for his industry might not be available in the county borough where he resided. It so happens that East Ham and London are not adjoining, although a substantial part of the population of East Ham gets its employment in the County of London.
We have made arrangements, under Clause 97, by which, if a young person attends a young people's college in another area than that which is responsible for financing his education—a point to which I will come in a minute—the local education authority shall afford the education, and secure repayment by agreement; or, failing agreement, the point goes to the Minister. I think that that will meet what my hon. and learned Friend has in mind. We desire that the directing authority should be able to take into account the circumstances of the young person and, to a very considerable extent, his wishes; and that where he desired, for good reasons, to attend a young people's college in an area other than that responsible for his education, he should be entitled to do so and the cost should be recoverable from that authority which is responsible for financing his education. There may be a further complication. It may be neither the authority in whose area the young person resides nor the authority providing the education, which has the financial responsibility, but the area in which the guardian of the young person resides. In view of the complicated system of liabilities, we have come to the conclusion that it should be met under Clause 97; and, on the Order Paper to-day, there are Amendments, in the name of my right hon. Friend, to that

Clause. We have had the point thoroughly in mind, and we believe that it is covered in the Bill.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: On that assurance, and with reservations which are subject to further consideration of the Amendments to Clause 97, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Parker: I beg to move, in page 34, line 18, to leave out "one whole day, or two," and to insert "two whole days, or four."

The Temporary Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we had a general discussion on all Amendments dealing with the period.

Mr. Parker: Including the question of full-time education for young persons who are unemployed?

The Temporary Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Parker: I would like to raise the whole question of the amount of time which young people will spend weekly at the young people's colleges. Most of us are agreed that the idea of the young people's college is definitely good, but many of us are very sceptical as to whether one day or two half-days in a week can provide any education which is really worth while. There is a very strong case for saying that if a young person spends only the equivalent of one day a week in attendance at the young people's college, it will not be the young people's college which is really the dominating factor on the life of the young person, but, far more, the place where he or she works. I think that the Committee take the view that, in the formative years at the age of 16 or 17, it is important that the college or school influence should continue to be the main influence that the children are under.

Captain Cobb: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the home environment has no effect on the life of the child?

Mr. Parker: No, I do not take that view; but, comparing the effect of the college with that of the place of work, I think it is indeed the fact that the influence of the place of work would be very much the more dominant in the building of character and the training of the young person than that of the college. Many


of us hope that, sooner or later, it will be possible for the time spent at the colleges to be half-time—to get up to a period of three days in the week—but I am suggesting two days for a start. That would give an opportunity for experimenting with curricula to a far greater extent than could be done on one day a week. With one day, it would not be possible to give much more than an outline, in the nature of technical education, and many of us take the view that these colleges should offer not only opportunities of technical education, but opportunities for training young persons generally in their duties and in the things which would make them good citizens.
With regard to my second Amendment, anyone who had anything to do with youth movements in the years between the two wars will realise the enormously bad effect that a long period of unemployment had on young persons in the depressed areas, particularly in areas like the North-East Coast and South Wales. Many of us take the view that, whatever happens after this war, we should not allow our young persons again to go through that period of disillusionment, in which they had nothing better to do than to hang about and hope for a job. That sort of thing should be banished for good and all. In the period between the wars, many bodies, like the Council for Social Service, were started, for training and educating young people who were out of work. Many were well worth while; some were not so good. Much experimental work was done in that period. I think we should build on that experience, and the young people's colleges might be used as places where young people out of work might be trained. I do not think it would be possible to use a young people's college for that purpose while the regular education was being carried on there. If you had just one or two unemployed young persons in an area, they could easily be worked in, but if you had a particularly bad period, with a lot of young people out of work, you would have to set up special courses to deal with the situation. But you could use the colleges, to have classes available for those young persons. Many of us take the view that this opportunity should not be allowed to go by, without consideration by the Committee of the whole question of continued education for unemployed young persons. It is

most important that during the formative years of life they should not be left on the scrap-heap, with nothing to do. It is important to give them training during that period. Therefore, I am putting forward the idea that the young people's colleges should be used for training young persons out of work, if they are of the age groups which would normally be attending young people's colleges. I am not going into the question of whether it would be necessary to have special courses for those young persons, or whether they should be worked into the normal classes. That would depend on the actual numbers concerned.

Mr. Lindsay: I want to add only one word to what the hon. Member for Rom-ford (Mr. Parker) has said. Obviously, he cannot expect his Amendment to be carried straight away, but I would like an assurance that the Minister will encourage more than one day a week. We are pressing to get the colleges set up, and if we are to have two days a week, it will probably make it more difficult to get them set up quickly. I also want to see the greatest flexibility because what we are trying to do here, as I understand it, is to build up a system of earning and learning on a flexible basis. There are two types of boys concerned—those in engineering, building or printing, and others where this will be really compensation for routine work. As long as there is the greatest flexibility, I personally, think that this is as far as we can go, but I do hope the Minister will encourage extension to more than one day a week.

Mr. Brooke: I should like to endorse what the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) said about flexibility. Looking some years ahead, I sympathise with the purpose of the Amendment. But it strikes me as completely out of the question that we should plan in this Bill to provide, before 1950, the teachers and accommodation for young peoples' colleges which the Amendment would require—double what the Bill envisages. That will only lead to what we all want to avoid—a further postponement of the reforms which this Bill contains. I rather wish that the Government, instead of making the wording so definite in the Bill, had used a more general form of words which would have enabled the Minister, by order, at a later stage—say five years or eight years on, whatever the


date might be—to extend the period of compulsory attendance from one day a week to one and a half or two days, or whatever might then be appropriate. I think that would be a practical way of doing it. As it is, I hope that future Parliaments will in fact look upon this as a measure which can be extended, and which should have that degree of flexibility to which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock has referred. If I might make some reference to the second Amendment of the hon. Member for Romford, which he mentioned in the latter part of his speech, it is, of course, highly desirable that we should evolve for any young people out of work something better than the ordinary junior instruction centres with which we were all familiar before the war. We do not want the young person out of work to be set on one side and marked as a kind of outcast who goes to a special place for unemployed boys or girls, and I am very much in favour of helping these young people's colleges to evolve so that they will make proper provision for unemployed boys and girls. Whether it would be desirable to include anything in the Bill like an instruction that it shall be compulsory for unemployed boys or girls to attend young people's colleges full-time—considering, for instance, that there might not be adequate accommodation ready—is a matter on which I should not like to pronounce, and I should be glad to hear what the Government has to say. I support the ultimate purposes of the Amendments, but I cannot imagine that either can be accepted.
Mr. Harvey: I take the opportunity of expressing the hope that we may have the largest measure of flexibility possible in the development of this very important scheme. I have on the Order Paper an Amendment based on the assumption that the Government were only willing to go as far as one day a week at present, and which actually limits the hours laid down in the Bill. Under the present arrangements, the hours of attendance for one day a week will be excessive, from the point of view of education. This one day in the young people's college will involve seven and a half hours, in contrast with the six hours of a normal secondary school day. It is too great a strain on the young people, and also too great a strain on the staff. The number of weeks in the year which are proposed will involve only

eight weeks' holiday for the teachers of these new people's colleges, which is an insufficient number for the preparation of their work and for a vacation. It is not enough to provide for refreshment. The teachers in the one school of this kind which is already working under the Fisher Act have found the strain of the long hours very considerable. One week's holiday at Easter involves too great a strain and insufficient refreshment, and does not provide a sufficient break. An Amendment on the Order Paper in my name suggests that, along with a smaller number of hours and shorter terms, there should be combined facilities for a period in camp or in educational travel. Of course, there are similar proposals that might be considered and approved by the Government.
I feel sure that the President and the Parliamentary Secretary are sympathetic to ideas of that kind of development of educational occupation in the country, and of training in the environment of country life, for young people in these colleges. I hope we may have an assurance that this may be authorised as part of the course, that is, work in approved training camps, and by that I do not merely mean pre-Service training, but that all kinds of educational camps, including in this scope farm and forestry work and work of that kind, as well as educational travel, may be recognised as being part of the scheme. Most valuable opportunities are being taken already in the elementary schools by making use of school journeys and of holiday camps. We ought to have a great extension of that kind of thing in connection with young people's colleges. It would afford refreshment and variety of occupation for the teachers who would volunteer to be in charge of parties of that kind. It would be far less strain for them than continuing their class work right through the summer, as they may have to do otherwise. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary may give us an assurance that there will be this flexibility, and that he will consider, if necessary, any alteration in the wording of the Clause which may make possible this wider use of the opportunities which I have ventured to outline to the Committee.

Mr. Messer: I am not clear what Clause 40 means, and I may be wrong in interpreting it as having relation to the accommodation required to provide this further


education, and the principle upon which the further education in young people's colleges is to be carried out. I think that, for the first time on this Bill, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke). These young people's colleges cannot be the same throughout the country. They are bound to be different in different places, and much of the education that the young people will get will have a character closely related to the occupations they have taken up. There may be, however, something in the nature of cultural education in these colleges which will not have any relation to the vocation of the young people, and, because of that, it may be that, if you lay down in an Act of Parliament a legal period, you will not be acting in the best interests of the young persons. It may be that what we want is a degree of elasticity to enable the local education authority to meet the needs of the student and see that he gets what he requires. It may be necessary for us to have an assurance on what will be the powers of the local education authorities in that respect. If Clause 40 does give an opportunity for local authorities to have their plans submitted to the Minister, then the point is covered. You are not here dealing with the fundamentals of education. You are not dealing with the primary stage, and you are not dealing with ordinary secondary education either in the technical sense or in the academic sense. But you are dealing with something else in addition to both these things. We assume that the student is already well grounded and has intelligence, and is going to acquire something, in addition, for a specific purpose. It may be practical or technical, but, whatever it is, you cannot lay down hard-and-fast rules on what is the best period for a young person to spend in these colleges.

Mrs. Cazalet Keir: I would like to say how much I welcome the Government's plans for deciding on an actual date for part-time education to start. I hope that, in reply, the Parliamentary Secretary will emphasise what was said in the White Paper on Clause 69—that the Government clearly consider that this one day is only a minimum. I think it significant that all people who are keenest on education and all social workers in the county feel that half-time

is the right objective and one day the absolute minimum. I fully appreciate that more cannot be done at the present time, but I hope that my hon. Friend will emphasise and endorse what the Government have said on this subject in the White Paper. In paragraph 70 in the White Paper they say that in rural areas there will be continuous residential courses instead of the one day. Is it the intention of the Government that these are to be brought into being at the same time as the one day per week colleges in urban areas?

Mr. Ede: The Committee has given very careful and sympathetic consideration to the Amendment in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) and others, and the Government welcome the concern of the Committee. We have to realise that we are legislating in this matter in the face of a great tragedy—the failure of the Sections of the Act of 1918 that were framed for a similar purpose. Therefore, I ask hon. and right hon. Friends not to overweight this at the moment, nor to give it too close and well-defined a form. We are in a realm where much good is capable of being done, if we only keep the instruments flexible and realise that we may have to unlearn a good many of the doctrines that some of us now hold with regard to this matter. If there ever was a field where we should proceed experimentally, this, surely, is it. This does not mean to say that we should not proceed in the belief that we can do a very great deal. But let us keep our minds as wide open as possible, with regard to both curriculum and time, and the other aspects touched upon by hon. Members who have taken part in the Debate. Therefore, as far as the number of days are concerned, let us realise that every time we add an extra day to this first day we require an additional number of teachers to those we want to start the scheme on the basis of one day a week. Here we are at the stage when we need to recruit teachers with a far wider range of experience than is possessed by most of the teachers whom we have recruited into the ordinary education service hitherto. It would be a great mistake if we overloaded the matter at the start so that we had to rely too much on the people who bring to the task of teaching the fixed ideas gained under the old full-time system.
By starting on the programme which my right hon. Friend announced on Tuesday, and which has now been put into the Bill by the Amendment he moved on the previous Clause, we shall start with the ages 15 to 18, and when the school-leaving age is raised to 16, we shall then have only two years instead of three with which to deal in these colleges. It will mean that we shall be able, with the accommodation and staff that we have then, to increase the time, if the House so decides at that time, by 50 per cent. I was very tempted by the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. H. Brooke) that we should put something into the Bill to enable us to do that by Order. I am surprised that a member of the Conservative Party should tempt Ministers to proceed by Orders rather than by amending Acts, but even when tempted by so strong a supporter of moral principles as the hon. Member, I must decline to fall into the trap. But we hope that, as with all ordinary education, the legal minimum will not be regarded as the maximum. We all know of numbers of people who, when their children are free from the compulsion of the existing law, keep them on for a term or two, or a year or two, in order that they may benefit by further education. I hope that local education authorities, in conjunction with firms who are willing to allow voluntary release for a longer period than the compulsory release, will embark upon experiments in the way of what can be done with longer periods than those that we prescribe in the Bill. A number of enlightened firms are doing it. I had the privilege of visiting a school conducted by Messrs. Mather and Platt, in Manchester, where they have a considerably longer number of hours in the week than we prescribe here.

Mr. Lindsay: Do not the boys go to school more or less at the place at which they work? Does my hon. Friend say that they should then have another day at the place where they live? That is a very important point. Do I understand that they are prepared to give two days?

Mr. Ede: That is what always happens when a Minister tries to be helpful. When one gives an illustration he is always asked if he is tied to it. What has been said is an illustration of the need for flexibility, and the desire that local education authorities should work in consultation with those enlightened firms, should try to fit

in local education authority arrangements with the best that the firms are willing to make, and then approach other firms, who may not be so enlightened, with the suggestion that they should allow their employees also to participate.

Mr. Gallacher: There are no enlightened firms represented on the Tory benches.

Mr. Ede: I have declined to be tempted by lion. Members on one side of the Committee, and I must decline to be tempted by my hon. Friend. Most of the points raised by the hon. Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) are not covered by the compulsory provision. As a teacher, I should rather look forward with fear to taking away to camps, youths from 15 to 18, who were attending the camp not because they wanted to do so but because the local education authority said they were to go. I can imagine nothing worse than a compulsory camp of that kind or even compulsory educational travel.

Mr. Harvey: It need not be compulsory. It can be voluntary.

Mr. Ede: There, again, there are ample facilities in the Bill, if local education authorities want to encourage that form of education, for that to be done. I hope it will be done on a voluntary basis, in consultation with the principal of the young people's college, who would say to the kind of people who can effectively run camps and educational journeys, Here are young people attending my college whom you might approach with advantage, to persuade them to join the camp or journey which you are contemplating." The association of young people, through the young people's colleges, with all sorts of educational and beneficial activities, will he among the most valuable results of this system, if we can once get it started.

Mr. S. O. Davies: It has been going on a long time in connection with elementary schools.

Mr. Ede: May I deal with the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mr. Parker) raised with regard to unemployed youths. Frankly, I do not think that that ought to be introduced into this Clause so as to make it appear that this is a Bill to deal with that particular phase of the problem of youth. They represent a considerable difficulty. The people concerned not with the juvenile


instruction centres, but with the evening institutes, where unemployed youths were compelled by the Minister of Labour to attend, if they wanted to draw unemployment benefit, know the effect it had there. I hope that we do not have this instrument interfered with in the same way. That does not mean that the Government do not feel a responsibility for unemployed youth. I suggest that they are not the responsibility of the Board of Education as the law stands at the moment.

Mr. Lindsay: This is very important, and the whole thing is very much weakened, if it is true. I understood that we are to abolish what we call unemployment between 15 and 18. Do I understand that when a boy leaves his job he is not under an obligation to go to a young people's college?

Mr. Ede: If a youth is between 15 and 18 and is not in full-time attendance at school, he will be obliged under the Bill to attend the young people's college for one day a week—or two half-days a week—whether employed or not. I was dealing with what is to happen to him when he is unemployed on the other days of the week. He will still be under the obligation to attend the young people's college for one day a week, not because he is employed or unemployed, but because he is of that age. If there is to be any compulsion with regard to education for the remaining days of the week, during periods of unemployment, that is not a matter for this Bill.

Mr. Lindsay: Is it a matter for the education authority?

Mr. Ede: That will be determined when the necessary legislation is introduced. One cannot get into an Education Bill a complete cure for all the ills of our social system. As we move from Clause to Clause we are continually being asked to deal, inside this Education Bill, with matters which are not primarily educational, although they may very well be brought, in conjunction with other Departments, within the educational sphere, and personally I hope they will be. But we cannot at this stage put them into this Bill.
I will give my hon. Friend the Member for Romford an example of the kind of difficulty which will be presented at once. There are thousands of girls who leave school, whether at 15 or 16, who remain

at home. They are not employed. Is it desired that these girls, when this scheme comes into effect, should be compelled to attend full-time at young people's colleges? That problem would arise immediately. That kind of thing is not to be dealt with within the corners of this Clause. Nobody representing a constituency such as mine, can ever look back on the years between 1922 and 1939 with feelings of other than horror at what the young people in those districts went through then. This is not the Clause in which to deal with that particular problem. It is a problem which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour has constantly before him, and I hope that, in consultation with him, we shall be able to evolve something which will be infinitely better for these young people than a recrudescence of those conditions.

Mr. Parker: Is it intended that young people who are unemployed should not have some form of occupation or education during the time they are unemployed?

Mr. Ede: As far as this Clause is concerned, their age will be the determining factor. The fact that they are unemployed, and no longer have an employer, does not release them from attending a young people's college. To that extent they will remain inside the education sphere under the local education authority and the Board of Education. What will happen to them on the other days of the week is clearly not a matter to be dealt with on this particular Clause. My hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mrs. Cazalet Keir) asked about the application of this Clause to the rural areas. It is our intention that there shall be a nation-wide application of the Clause. That is one of the essential differences between this Bill and the Act of 1918, where the obligation was local, and where that local obligation led to so much heart-burning that authorities, after they had started the reform, were compelled to drop it. Therefore, it will be the duty of local education authorities for rural areas, to establish the residential colleges, where the young people are to have eight consecutive weeks, at the same time as other areas are establishing the colleges where education will only be for one day a week.
I am sorry it is not possible to accept the Amendment which is the main subject of our discussion. To lay the duty on


the local authorities and the Government of preparing for two days a week, would lead to a considerable postponement of the effective date for introducing the reform, or to introducing it in so sketchy a form, in improvised and unsatisfactory buildings, as not to give this form of education the start that we desire. We do not desire to see this education carried on in old, worn-out buildings which have been rejected by every other phase of the education service, or in other buildings badly adapted for the purpose. We desire that, when it starts, this scheme shall have the benefit of starting under auspices that will enable the young people to feel that proper thought has been given to the provisions required.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I would rather put what I have to say in the form of a question than make another speech to the Committee. Would the hon. Gentleman clear up this matter? The Minister of Education has education schemes for youngsters between 16 and 18 known as junior instruction centres. I do not wish to decry those, for I have seen them at work, and I am satisfied that a great deal of very good work has been done in them. What is going to happen under this Bill to the youngsters who attend those junior instruction centres compulsorily five days a week, morning and afternoon? Under this Clause they will be compelled to attend either one day or two half-days a week under another form of education. The hon. Gentleman is aware that the local education authority does the organisation at present. Will the local education authority or the Minister of Education be responsible for this one day, or two half-days a week? We are left in a muddle over that. What is to happen to these two different schemes, not only running parallel but cutting across one another? Are those youngsters to be taken out of their junior instruction centres one day or two half-days a week and handed over to the Board of Education, or what are we going to do? Is not the logical situation this: that the whole of the education of these youngsters should be taken over under the Board of Education, and be made part and parcel of the great scheme which is implied in this Bill? Would the hon. Gentleman explain what is going to happen?

Mr. Ede: I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to apply to the circumstances of the moment circumstances that existed immediately before the war. I understand that very few, if any, of these junior instruction centres are now actually in operation.

Mr. Davies: Not at this stage; they have been suspended.

Mr. Ede: In this Clause we are making provision for the normal youth in normal times.

Mr. Davies: Amongst whom may be many thousands of unemployed. I do not wish to be discourteous, but surely the hon. Gentleman must not run away from it but face up to what may be the actual situation after this war.

Mr. Ede: I merely sat down because I gathered the hon. Gentleman 'wished to interrupt me, and I gave way in what I understood to be the courteous way, of allowing him to make his interruption in a form helpful to the Committee as a whole. When he finished I intended to rise to reply, and I am sorry he should think there was any other motive in what I did. We are dealing in this Clause with normal educational provisions. If there should have to be provision through the Minister of Labour or any other Government Department on this matter in the light of future events, I hope that the Board of Education will be so much in the picture that they will be able to arrange the matter. It is suggested to me that I should refer the hon. Gentleman to Part II of the 8th Schedule which is found oh page 93 of the Bill, which substitutes in the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, the words "President of the Board of Education" for the word "Minister," and then goes on to set out what is to happen in conjunction with Section 78 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935. I do not know whether hon. Members will be satisfied with that when they read it, but may I say that if they are not, quite clearly that will provide a fresh opportunity for them to raise this matter when we reach that stage of the Bill.

Mr. Lindsay: I was going to raise it on Clause 43 but we must raise it now, because if it remains at the end of this Bill, and we cannot, in consultation with the Minister of Labour, evolve a better system than what the Parliamentary Secretary has told us to-day, it is going to defeat some of the objects of the Bill.

Mr. Butler: The system is already in the Schedule if the hon. Gentleman will examine it.

Mr. Parker: In order to help the Committee, I will ask leave to withdraw my amendment, but I am not satisfied with the answers given. On the first point, I admit that the Amendment was put down in order to have the matter raised, but I hope the Government will look at the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Brooke) and see whether the idea that the system should be flexible cannot be put into the Bill in one way or another—with regard to the one day business—so that perhaps on the Report stage we might have that altered. With regard to the other point, I would like to make a protest about the way in which various Government Departments interested in youth, when youth comes to be affected by the Education Bill, seem to put in a right to keep them under their control for some reason or other. I would have thought that in this particular matter it was highly desirable that young persons to be entered for young people's colleges should, if unemployed, be under the charge of the Board of Education for that period rather than under some other Ministry.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 35, line 3, to leave out from "that" to "the," in line 5.
The object of this Amendment is to enable the Minister to prescribe for pupils employed under casual circumstances, for instance, on nightshift work, continuous attendance which need not be for a continuous period of at least four weeks. It may very well be that such a young person should be encouraged to attend consecutively for a number of days rather than to attempt to bring him into the provision, whereby he must attend one day a week. The Clause, as drafted, does not allow this to take place unless he is in a position to attend for four weeks. This Amendment would enable him to have a continuous attendance of less than four weeks and so discharge his liability under the Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 35, line, 12, leave out from "required" to the end of line 13.—[Mr. Ede.]

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I beg to move, in page 36, line 31, to leave out "fifteen," and to insert "seventeen."
The Amendment is designed to close the gap between the school-leaving age and the young people's colleges, and I do not want to expatiate upon it in view of the assurance given by the Minister in the Debate last Tuesday on the question of raising the school-leaving age. One of his contentions against the raising of the age to 16 in a specific period, was that he desired to close the gap and to make provision for boys and girls who had attained the age of 15, and were, therefore, only subject to compulsory attendance at school to come within the scheme of young people's colleges. I confess I do not know how that is going to work out and how far the gap is going to be closed. Therefore I prefer, at this stage, to do nothing except formally move the Amendment and ask the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary to explain exactly how the gap is to be closed.

Mr. Ede: The issue raised here by my hon. and learned Friend would involve bringing back into young people's colleges some young people who, at the time the Measure comes into operation, will have been in industry for some one or two years—

Mr. Hughes: Or months.

Mr. Ede: Or months. The view of the Government is that it will be impossible to apply this Amendment in actual practice. The young person who has once gone into industry untrammelled by any of these requirements to attend a young people's college, is a very different young person from the one who leaves school and goes into industry knowing that, from the day he leaves school, he is under a liability to attend a young people's college. Therefore, when the Measure comes into operation, we do not propose that those who have been released from school without obligation to attend a young people's college should have that obligation imposed on them, because in law it is an obligation. Nothing will prevent any young person who wants to do so, attending a young people's college, although he is exempted under the Clause, as drafted, from any obligation to attend. Nor will it prevent the employer from giving a young person leave to attend if he so desires, but, for certain


well-known disciplinary reasons at which I hinted in reply to the previous Amendment, it might be very difficult indeed to try to start some of these young people's colleges with young people over 16 or 17 years of age who have for two or three years been free from any obligation.

Mr. Hughes: I am completely dissatisfied with that answer. After listening to the Minister's speech on Tuesday I had hoped that one of his major arguments against raising the age to 16 was that they were going to close the gap by extending young people's colleges to cover the children from 15 years of age. I hoped, on this Amendment, to get some positive proposal from the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary as to how the gap was going to be closed. I want the Committee to realise what this rejection means. Suppose you have a boy aged 15 leaving school in July. Young people's colleges come into operation in October. On the first occasion on which they come into operation—which we hope will be as near the end of this war as possible—we are dealing with the very type of boy who has suffered most from educational deficiencies. According to what the Parliamentary Secretary has just said, the mere fact that this boy has had work from July to September is going to prevent him from getting the advantages of a young people's college. It is all very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to say, "Well, of course, he can apply, or the employer can apply." The only way to make this effective is for it to be compulsory. Is one boy or one girl out of a factory going to apply, or are two or three of them? Is one employer going to apply to have these boys and girls sent to the young people's colleges when the other employers are not going to do it? We know perfectly well that that kind of thing does not count for anything at all. We must not have a gap in this Bill.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to reconsider the matter, because there might be a gap of three complete years, which would mean that boys and girls would be excluded, immediately after the war, from the advantages of young people's colleges. If the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary believe in young people's colleges they ought to be anxious to get as many young people as they can into them, and not have this kind of exemption, which will leave them out. I hope I shall get some support from the Committee in

order to persuade the Government of the urgent necessity of closing the gap.

Mr. Butler: As I am alleged to have said something about closing the gap perhaps I can accept responsibility. The position put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) is that so far as possible he wishes young people to be covered by the education service, although when I made this observation the other day no reaction came from the other side.

Mr. Hughes: We wanted to close the gap in another way.

Mr. Butler: I would like to make provision to cover all young people but I can give no undertaking that every young person will be covered, owing to the difficulty of age. Often a child's birthday falls on a certain date, which means that he misses a scholarship, and that is often thought to be unfair. I have deliberately tightened up the Clause in order to introduce earlier than was intended the scheme covering young people's colleges. I had in mind that instead of waiting for the time when schools are ready with teachers and buildings to take children up to the age of 16, particularly in country districts, we should advance the young people's colleges. That was the assurance I tried to give, and to be fair to the Committee now I cannot guarantee that every child would be covered. All I can do is to give the undertaking to try to cover more children more quickly.

Mr. Lipson: If my right hon. Friend cannot close the gap as regards instruction can he close it in regard to medical inspection and care, because we attach great importance to the fact that when children have left school they will get this inspection and care in the young people's colleges? The objections which my right hon. Friend raised will not apply to the provision of medical services, and if he could reassure us on that point we would feel that he had made more of an effort to meet a difficulty.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) in this demand for providing opportunities for all young people to go into these colleges. What will be the position of boys and girls, after they have passed their I7th birthday, just before the Bill comes into operation? You may get an employer in a locality


who will encourage lads to go to continuation classes but another employer may discourage them. We have often heard in this House, particularly from the other side, that there are good employers. It should be understood that there are no good employers. There are employers who make good profits and there are employers who make poor profits. Those with the good profits will allow their lads to go to the continuation classes while those with the low profits will not. After a time the employer with, the high profits may get only law profits while the employer with the low profits may get high profits. So the situation will be reversed, which will be farcical.

Mr. Lindsay: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will consider the future when he speaks of this matter as being something which a boy regards as a burden. Possibly a boy, going on to a college, may feel some desire to emulate someone who has had the chance to go one year earlier.

Mr. McEntee: My hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) said there were no good employers and I was sorry to hear that, because I understand that even the Communist Party are good employers. As he said, there may be two employers close to each other in an industrial area. One may be anxious to give every opportunity to young people and the other may not. Could the Government put in the Bill words to make it compulsory on employers to give to boys and girls who desire to attend college the opportunity to do so?

Mr. Ede: The point with which we are engaged is concerned with the first three years after the Clause comes into operation. If the Clause stands as it is drafted, in the first year after that date, the young people who attain the age of 15 at school will leave school with the obligation to attend young people's colleges. In the second year, all the young people between 15 and i7 who have left school will be under that obligation, and in the third year it will apply to every young person under the age of i8 who has left school. This is a purely transitional point and will be satisfactorily met, in any event, at the end of the three years. May I point out to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hughes) that by doing it in this way we shall be able to

make a start for some of the children far sooner than if we—not the children—were placed under an obligation to provide this scheme for the full three years as from the appointed day? If we have to make arrangements for one year, instead of three, we, and the local authorities, ought to be able to bring the scheme into operation at an earlier date than would be otherwise the case.
With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Walthamstow (Mr. McEntee), he will see that we are only dealing with a transitional period. I suggest that we do not want to make the machinery of the Bill too complicated for what is purely a transitional period. Much as I regret seeing any child lose any benefit under this Clause, I suggest that the arrangement we have made is one that is workable, both having regard to the internal administration of the schools, which is by no means a point to be neglected, and with a view to getting on with the job as quickly as we possibly can.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 43.—(Administrative provisions for securing attendance at young people's colleges.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Lindsay: Could the Parliamentary Secretary explain Sub-section (4), which relates to the issuing of instructions to local education authorities?

Mr. Ede: I hesitate to instruct a Scotsman in the use of the English language, but it states that my right hon. Friend and the Minister of Labour shall issue instructions to local education authorities and the local offices of the Ministry of Labour respectively, which means that my right hon. Friend will issue them to the local education authorities and that the Minister of Labour will issue them to the local offices of the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Lindsay: I did not mean that; I meant these two Ministers would issue instructions—that we are getting it on a fifty-fifty basis.

Mr. Ede: All these things are bound up with future arrangements, which have not yet been determined, with regard to the whole range of employment of young


people and their educational facilities during this period. At the moment, we are bound to have this Sub-section in the Bill so as to ensure that any such instructions and notices which are issued are issued jointly and with the knowledge of each Department.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 44 and 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 46.—(Medical inspection and treatment of pupils.)

The Chairman: Mr. Linstead.

Dr. Haden Guest: On a point of Order. Do I understand, Major Milner, that you do not intend to call the Amendment in my name and the name of my hon. Friends—
In page 39, line 7, at the end, to insert:
and to provide for an inspection of the pupil's home conditions by the school medical officer if in his opinion this is necessary for the purpose of determining the cause of any illness or defect or incapacity seriously affecting the pupil's health and preventing him from profiting by education at school or young people's college.

The Chairman: No, I have not selected that Amendment, but perhaps the point may be raised on the Amendment which is about to be moved.

Mr. Linstead: I beg to move, in page 39, line 5, after "medical," to insert "dental and optical."
The purpose of this Amendment is to raise for consideration the dental and optical sections of the medical inspection and treatment which it is the duty of local authorities, under the Bill, to provide. The Committee will probably agree that dental disease is one of the most prevalent troubles among school children. The difficulty which the Board of Education will have before them is the extreme shortage of dentists. How far my right hon. Friend anticipates that he will be able to remedy that one does not know but, taking the country as a whole, we shall for long be suffering a shortage. As far as optical treatment is concerned, it appears that two or three times during a child's school life it gets an optical examination, but I am given to understand that there are only some 650 medically qualified ophthalmic practitioners available for the inspection and treatment and well over 5,000,000 school children, and one is driven to the conclusion that in a great

many cases defects of vision are missed when they ought to be identified. If that is so, it raises the question whether the services of sight testing opticians should not be used to supplement the services of the few ophthalmologists available. I hope my right hon. Friend will indicate whether he is satisfied with the dental and ophthalmic services and whether he does not consider that it would be desirable to provide a full sight testing by the utilisation of opticians.

Dr. Haden Guest: I should like to support the hon. Member, with this proviso, that if people who are not medically qualified are to make examinations which may be necessary over a period that shall be regarded as a provisional arrangement, because examination of the eyes is a very difficult matter in which the greatest possible care should be taken and one which requires not only knowledge of the eye as a lens, or series of lenses, but knowledge of the constitution of the child, and involves a large number of other factors, so that if the matter is to be looked at sympathetically by the Minister I hope he will look at it sympathetically with a view to an interim and not necessarily a permanent arrangement. There is a shortage both in dental and eye treatment and that, of course, extends to the child population as well. In view of the fact that you, Sir, are not going to call the Amendment in my name and that of others, who are members of the Parliamentary medical group, of all parties, I hope I may make a reference to another service which we hope we may get extended.
It may appear to be a novel suggestion to provide for the inspection of pupils' home conditions by the school medical officer, if in his opinion that is necessary for determining the cause of any illness, but the point of it is to bring home conditions into relation with school conditions, because it is very frequently in the home that conditions are found which are very detrimental to the child's health. I hope the Minister will say he will accept the principle of the Amendment, because it does not involve any change of system. It does not involve any periodical visits to the home. It only gives the school medical officer the right to go to the home, if in his opinion it is necessary, in order to determine what is the matter with the child. There are quite a number of cases of that kind. The medical officer of health


has the right to go into the home at present, and health visitors and school nurses also go there. There is no intrusion, because this is intended to be something to assist in the home. These matters arise from a conference in November, where members of school care committees in the London, area were appalled by the conditions of the home which produced defects, ailments, diseases and incapacities so great as to prevent the children profiting from their education. Until those defects in the home can be dealt with, it will not be possible for considerable numbers of children to profit from the education which the Bill is offering them.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is now discussing a later Amendment which I was not proposing to call, and I do not think this would be the appropriate place for discussing it even if it were in Order.

Dr. Guest: I understood that you said it would be appropriate to discuss it on this Amendment. I apologise if I was wrong.

The Chairman: I said it might be possible to discuss it on the Clause. However, the hon. Member has made his point and I hope he will be content with that.

Dr. Guest: I have not made my point. I hope to catch your eye, Major Milner, on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Captain Cobb: This Amendment covers pretty generally the question of the effectiveness or otherwise of the medical inspection of school children, I want to make a few suggestions which, I believe, are very widely held amongst people who have interested themselves in this question. A great deal of inspection is ineffective because too little time is given to it and the doctor has far too many children to look after. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the school medical officer hardly has the opportunity of discovering whether the patient he is examining is a boy or a girl, let alone whether there is anything the matter with him. For every child who has a disability discovered by the doctor, probably two or three escape. I hope my right hon. Friend will see to it that really effective steps are taken to ensure that, since these medical inspections are to be held, they should be really effective.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: I also support the Amendment, because it seems to me that we need the utmost emphasis on preventive measures. I am sorry not to see a specific provision for optical treatment and examination in the Bill. I cannot help thinking that it has been overlooked.

Mr. Butler: indicated dissent.

Mr. Bartlett: I am sorry. I was hoping the right hon. Gentleman would tell me that in this vast labour he is undertaking he had overlooked it. It seems to me a great pity that he cannot give us some satisfaction on this, because it seems fairly obvious that a great number of children suffer from bad eyesight. Though my right hon. Friend assured me the other day that the examination given to children lasted somewhere about 20 minutes, none the less this seems to be a matter that should be taken up. If, as we are told, there are fewer than 1,000 ophthalmic surgeons available, there are some 7,000 fully qualified optical practitioners. I would ask, therefore, whether my right hon. Friend cannot accept the Amendment.

Colonel Greenwell: I hope my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment. We all feel that, as far as teeth are concerned, we are about 1,000 years behind America, and the effect throughout a person's life of neglect of the teeth during youth is most pronounced. It will be a great step forward if dental inspection is very much improved. On the other side of the question, defective vision, on grounds of common sense, that ought to be accepted, because a child suffering from bad eyesight cannot possibly learn. A great deal of learning is absorbed through the eye and, unless children's eyes are properly attended to, they will not only be incapable of absorbing the knowledge with which the Bill ultimately seeks to provide them but it also distracts their attention, because they suffer from headaches and other troubles and are incapable of absorbing knowledge.

Mr. Messer: I am surprised at the emphasis that has been placed on dental and optical inspection. I cannot conceive of a medical examination which ignores the teeth and eyes. If they are mentioned, does it mean that other parts are being left out? Does it mean that, because you specify dental and optical


examination, the child will not get orthopaedic examination? Surely in urban areas the medical officer of health is the school medical officer, and he is responsible under the education committee for the examination and the recommendation and subsequent assurance of treatment of the child. If we are to be labelling every separate thing that has to be dealt with, it implies that something has gone wrong. I have suspected for some time that we have not anything like a school medical service in existence. I should prefer to see the school medical service embodied in the national or local medical service, so that we shall have the assurance of efficient professional treatment. I know that there are opticians and opticians but, if the Amendment means that you can only get people who can test sight made responsible for saying that a child does not want treatment, you are taking a heavy responsibility. It may very easily be that, whilst an optician can rectify defective sight by the application of lenses, it takes a doctor to determine that there is something wrong with an eye that requires treatment. It is because of these things that I am rather hesitant to lend support to the inspection of children by people who are not qualified for the job. I hope I am not outdoing the doctors, but I know the danger of allowing defective vision to be rectified merely by lenses when it needs treatment, because there is the possibility of permanent harm being done. I hope the Government will be very careful with regard to what they do on the Amendment.

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has really spoken for the Government. The view he has expressed is entirely sound. We sympathise with his view, because we know the interest he has taken in handicapped and other children. The position as seen by the Government is that, if we were to add these words, we would be adding nothing to the powers of the Bill. In the Definition Clause "medical inspection" covers "dental." It may be asked why "optical" is not put in the Definition Clause. I am advised that if we put in a definition of "optical" we should have to bring in definitions of the other specialised branches of medicine, in which case we should take all the longer to consider this Bill. We should have to con-

sider the oral, cardiac, orthopaedic, respiratory and many other aspects of the human system, on which my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) would be better able to advise than am. I am advised that the general terms "medical" and "medical officer" cover ophthalmologist. I have taken great trouble in briefing myself on this matter because I find that doctors are just as good politicians as we are ourselves. Therefore, one has to be very well armed in dealing with them.
The main issue raised is whether the school medical services are satisfactory. On that point I can only say that, if there were more doctors and more opportunities in war-time for staffing the services, they would obviously be better. In war-time, however, we have had to suffer from the needs of the Armed Forces and to sacrifice many of our doctors. That is not the issue which arises on this Bill. The issue is whether the Statute as we are framing it is satisfactory. There have been references from hon. Members on the subject of opticians, who have a power of organising themselves which I find almost unequalled, except perhaps on the part of some of the denominations. I should like to pay tribute to the work that the opticians do in the school medical service. In many areas it is the practice of the optician to attend with the ophthalmic surgeon when children's eyes are being examined, so that they may receive prescriptions if spectacles are needed. Opticians help in the national health services and their services are particularly vital. The point is that they are not doctors, and what the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) said is true. I am advised that practically all children at birth are hypermetropic—

Mr. Bartlett: Will the right hon. Gentleman put that in Basic English?

Mr. Butler: —and that between 12 and 14 the eyes gradually become emmetropic, with the result that, to put it simply from the point of view of my own children, their eyes gradually adjust themselves with their growth, and they therefore need rather more visual tests to discover what is wrong with their eyes. One has, therefore, in the general examination of children to examine not only for eyestrain, but for the physical causes that may be at the back of the eye strain. In the test for optical troubles, therefore,


the children cannot be dealt with by anybody who is not a qualified medical man. Much as we pay tribute to the work of the opticians and hope that they will continue to serve the schools and the national health services as they have done, I must insist that the general examination of children for eye troubles should be done by ophthalmologists, and not by somebody solely concerned with the making up of the prescriptions with the very expert and excellent knowledge they have of glasses, and so forth.

Captain Prescott: I would like to support the Amendment. I appreciate what my right hon. Friend has said and the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer), but I would like to state what I am informed is the present procedure with regard to the inspection and testing of eyes in the school. I have no personal knowledge of the matter, but I am informed that very often the inspection is done by a nurse or even by a teacher. The test generally takes the form of reading a test type, and no proper inspection is made in many cases. I am informed, also, that very often treatment is prescribed which is the exact opposite of what should have been prescribed. I have been given details of a child being treated for myopia, when it was suffering from the exact opposite, hypermetropia. I would ask my right hon. Friend to consider whether, if this Amendment is accepted, it would not make it obligatory for opticians to examine children's eyes. I must not discuss the definition Clause, but this Amendment would be linked up with that Clause, in which we hope that optical inspection will be defined. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that a proper inspection shall take place by somebody. I am told that optical inspection should involve the preliminary determination by optical means of the existence of errors of refraction and incipient anomalies or abnormalities of the eye. I am told that that is not taking place at the moment. I would ask my right hon. Friend to give further consideration to this matter. I appreciate his observations about the organising power of opticians. There are 7,000 of them and they are recognised for their work under National Health Insurance, and I am told that they would be of very great value if they were employed, at least in part, for this purpose.

Mr. Butler: The answer to my hon. and gallant Friend is that we do pay full tribute to opticians and that they are used and will continue to be used, but I cannot substitute them for ophthalmologists in important cases.

Mr. Petherick: I am not fully satisfied with the reply of my right hon. Friend. I understand his view that it would be difficult to insert all kinds of specialists in the Bill to cover all the different aspects of the human body. Leaving out the question of the dental practitioner, which appears to be covered in the Definition Clause, I come to the optical practitioner. It would be desirable, of course, to have available for every school a qualified ophthalmic surgeon to examine the eyes of the children for disease, but there are not enough of them. The reason for refusing the Amendment may not be what appears on the surface. It may be that a branch of the medical profession is not very happy about it. As I understand it, a certain part of the medical profession, namely, the ophthalmologists, are rather alarmed lest the optical practitioner, who is accustomed only to rectify errors in sight, may fail to detect disease. That is an understandable reason, but I am informed that the best of the optical practitioners look out for disease and not only for errors of refraction, astigmatism, and so on, and that when they find disease they report it to the medical officer qualified to deal with the trouble. It seems to me that we might get into the difficulty that if we do not draw attention in the Bill to the necessity for an examination of eyesight, we may run the risk that sight will not be examined nearly as often as it ought to be. Lack of examination of children's eyesight may have an effect out of all proportion to the narrow question of vision; it may affect the general health. Therefore, I feel it would be well to examine between now and the Report stage the question whether it is advisable to put in the Bill something to draw particular attention to the necessity for the examination by an optical practitioner if a qualified ophthalmologist cannot be obtained.

Rear-Admiral Beamish: May I draw attention to the importance of discovering at the earliest possible moment defects in colour vision? They are of the utmost importance and are easily discovered. Something like 10 per cent. of


males suffer from some form of colour vision defect, but the fortunate and weaker sex have only four cases per 1,000. The test for colour vision is now a very simple one, and the earlier it is possible to find out whether children are suffering from colour vision defects the better it is from the point of view of deciding upon their future professional careers. There are a number of careers which are completely closed to them if they are suffering from colour vision defects.

Mr. Linstead: Before asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, I would like to refer to the Minister's reply. It was unexceptionable on the basis that there are a sufficient number of ophthalmologists. The trouble is, however, that there are only some 700 of these specially qualified medical practitioners available for the 5,500,000 school children. The whole basis of the argument for the Amendment is that this is an insufficient proportion and that until the situation is remedied it is better that the examination should be undertaken by skilled opticians rather than by the teacher, or nurse or somebody who happens to notice that there is something wrong with the child. It is on that basis that the Amendment has been put forward, and it may become necessary to raise the matter on a later Clause.

Mr. Pethick-Lawrence: Before the hon. Member withdraws the Amendment, I would like to put it to the Minister that there is a great deal in what the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) said. What the Committee is afraid of is not that these various elements are excluded from the provisions of the Bill, but that they will be overlooked and not attended to. There are a great many things that need attending to, such as the teeth, the eyes, the feet, and also colour blindness. If the Minister were to give us an assurance that between now and the Report stage he will consider whether the words of the Clause are adequate, or whether it is desirable to include words which will draw special attention to these things being properly cared for in the schools, it will relieve the minds of the Committee.

Mr. Bartle Bull: Surely the Minister has already said that.

Mr. Gallacher: I support the Amendment, and I suggest that we should make some progress with the Bill.

Mr. Butler: I can assure hon. Members that this matter is largely one of administration. Whether there are or are not sufficient ophthalmologists at present is not a matter which we can put right by altering the Statute, but I will certainly bear the point in mind in the course of the administration of the school medical service. I would add to the remarks made by the right hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence) and the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) that I have already taken steps to see that, in the reports of the chief medical officers, special attention is drawn to the needs of children with visual difficulties, including colour blindness, being brought to the attention of doctors, through the nurses and the school teachers.
Before coming to this Debate, I have also had a review, for my own satisfaction, of the services in question, and it appears, notwithstanding what has been said in regard to the number of surgeons, that this service has been operating as well as any other in the school medical service. However, in view of what hon. Members have said, and subject to the remarks made earlier, I will give this matter my most earnest consideration in continuing stages of the Bill. I feel sure that that will be in accordance with the general sense of the Committee.

Mr. Linstead: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 39, line 7, at the end, to insert:
and every local education authority shall have power to provide for such inspection of senior pupils in attendance at any other educational establishment maintained by them.
In order to understand this Amendment, the Committee should turn to the definition of "school" in Clause 103. They will see that it would mean that there would be medical inspection and treatment only for pupils in primary or secondary schools. This Amendment accordingly has been put down to provide for medical treatment for senior pupils in technical schools.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir Ernest Graham-Little: I beg to more, in page 39, line 8, to leave out Sub-section (2), and to insert:


(2) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as imposing any obligation on a parent to submit his child to medical inspection or treatment nor as imposing a similar obligation on any person attending a young person's college.
The Minister has an Amendment on this subject further down the Order Paper. I would ask him whether, if he cannot accept the Amendment I am now moving, he would include in his Amendment the words "inspection and treatment." The discussion which has taken place has indicated the importance of inspection. If the Minister could see his way to include inspection in his Amendment, we should be satisfied. I should also like to give notice that I will, on the Motion "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," make some further observations on this subject.

Mr. Butler: As has been rightly said, the Amendment which I have on page 764 of the Paper goes all the way that the Committee should wish to meet the Amendment now moved. I think the Committee will be very wrong if they omit compulsory inspection from the schools. I agree that it is a distinct novelty in this country, but one to which I attach particular importance, and which will make all the difference to the health of the child. It is quite another matter to force people to accept treatment. When the Bill was drafted the matter was left in a way which was unsatisfactory to some sections of opinion in the country. I accordingly put down the Amendment, which meets the hon. Gentleman in regard to treatment. Therefore, I hope that he will not press his Amendment, because I certainly could not accept it in regard to inspection.

Sir E. Graham-Little: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made:

In page 39, line 9, leave out "or college," and insert "college or other educational establishment."

In line 15, after "college," insert:
or other educational establishment maintained by the authority.

In line 25, after the first "and," insert:
every local education authority shall have power to make such arrangements as aforesaid with respect to senior pupils in attendance at any other educational establishment maintained by them.

(4) It shall be the duty of every local education authority."—[Mr. Butler.]

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 39, line 26, at the end, to insert:
as aforesaid:
Provided that if the parent of any pupil gives to the authority notice that he objects to the pupil availing himself of any medical treatment provided under this section the pupil shall not be encouraged or assisted so to do.
The Amendment was designed not only to meet the point of view of the hon. Member for the London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) but other interests in the House. The words in the Amendment speak for themselves. It is a legitimate point, and one which I think the Committee will be wise to accept. There are certain conscientious people in this country who feel that they could not accept the Clause.

Mr. Woodburn: What happens in the case of skin troubles, which may be infectious to every child in the school, when the school might not have authority to have a particular child examined to make sure whether some skin affection endangers other children?

Mr. Gallacher: In the event of a parent being a crank or having some of those peculiar ideas about treatment, and of the pupil being recognised as subject to a particular trouble which is curable by a particular treatment, are we to understand that, if the crazy parent objects, the Minister is not going to give the child all the necessary assistance to get cured?

Mr. Butler: The Clause is so drafted that the words "encouraged or assisted" apply to treatment. The inspection is compulsory. That is a considerable advance on the present practice. The Committee should realise that that particular advance is about as far as we should go. In the case of an infectious disease, the child responsible would be excluded from school, and the other children would therefore be protected.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Woodburn: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. M. Hughes) had an Amendment down suggesting that inspection should take


place at least once a year. At the moment the Clause provides for inspection at appropriate intervals. That is a very loose provision, and the question is, How often is an appropriate interval? There seems a decided argument in favour of the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend and I should be glad if the Minister, when he replies, would state what objection there is to specifying a definite time when the inspection must take place.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I am very grateful for that intervention on the part of my hon. Friend. It is right that there should be provision for the inspection of school children at decent intervals. Perhaps I might inject a little personal note into this matter of school inspection. My children are inspected in their school by the local education authority, and I can endorse what the Minister has said about the effectiveness of the eye inspection. The deficiency is in the provision of the necessary treatment after the inspection, and, still more, the frequency of the inspection, to make sure that the treatment recommended is being applied and that the child is improving.
As the Clause stands, the inclusion of the word "appropriate" means nothing at all. What does "appropriate" mean? Somebody has to decide what is appropriate. If you added to the word "appropriate" some authority to define what appropriate was, we should be getting somewhere, but merely to have that word alone is mere windowdressing. We might as well leave it out and say "at intervals." To say "appropriate intervals" adds nothing whatever to the legal meaning of the Clause. The Amendment of mine which was not called proposed that there should be an annual inspection. I do not particularly press for that. It might well be that the inspection should be even more frequent. I am sure that members of the medical profession here agree with me that, in orthopaedic cases, when advice has been given, it is not once a year but once in two months or three months that inspection has to take place. What is required is not necessarily a fixed term but that the Ministry should declare that it is the policy of the Department that instructions will be given to local education authorities to see that the inspections take place at intervals sufficiently close to ensure that they are effective, and that the advice which has

been given for treatment is being carried out. At present there is a shortage of school medical staff. It is shorter than it was before the war, and it certainly is deficient now in many parts of the country. I would like to see some flexibility in it, as regards the number of doctors and others who are available to carry out the medical inspection.
But what matters, I think, is that the Minister should assure the Committee that it is his intention, and the intention of the Department, as its declared policy, which in due course can be checked in this House, that medical inspection shall take place at sufficiently close intervals to ensure that it is effective and that treatment has been carried out.

Dr. Haden Guest: I support what has just been said about medical inspection. I suggest that the Minister might insert, possibly at some later stage, a provision that inspection shall take place not less than three times during the school career—entrance, midway in the school career, and before leaving. That was the practice in London for a long time—I was a school medical inspector myself—and it worked very well. If a child is reported for treatment, that is followed up by the people at the clinics, so that part of the matter is covered to a certain extent. [Interruption.] It depends on the area of the education authority. It would, undoubtedly, be better if inspection were carried out at regular intervals, whether annually or otherwise, because it is not only the inspection that is of value to the child, but regularity, and watching a child's development and growth over a period, and having it recorded on the school card.
I wish to ask the Minister a question with regard to the point I attempted to raise by way of Amendment. It is with regard to the school medical officer being given the opportunity to inspect the home conditions if the condition of the child was such that he thought it must arise from something within the home. Will the Minister consider whether that could properly be the subject of a new Clause? In a case, for instance, where there is concealed tuberculosis in the home, one could not tell that just by asking questions. One must go to the home. There is the case where there is, for instance, an incompatibility between the parents leading to frequent quarrels, possibly due, on one side, to drunkenness or something else,


which causes a tearing of the nervous fabric of the child's mind and spirit. It is most important that the medical officer should be able to see what is going on there. To take a more concrete case, in these days when there is great overcrowding, it is very important to the medical officer to be able to see whether there is adequate sleeping accommodation for a child. In a recent survey in my own constituency and an adjoining area, a very large number of cases were found in which all the members of a family up to the age of seven were sleeping in one room in very overcrowded conditions. In such conditions it is quite impossible for proper rest to be obtained, and sleep is almost as important for a child as food.
In those conditions, the medical officer is not likely to get that information in the course of medical inspection. He might get it from a school nurse who has visited the home, or from a parent who was present at the inspection, though in my experience only a minority of parents attended. It would be very desirable if the school medical officer had the duty of going to see for himself what the conditions were as regards sleep, possible tuberculosis infection, nervous disturbance, and so on. I am sorry that my Amendment was not called as I could then have gone into the matter more fully. But I would ask: Does not the Minister think there is a good case for giving the school medical officer, not only the right but the duty of visiting the home in order to report on the conditions affecting the child's relation to its school?
One further question, not one of disease at all, is that of the play activities of the child. Many homes have no room where a child can play. They have no room where a child can do homework. These conditions have a vital effect on the progress of a child in school. I hope that the President will reply affirmatively and make this the subject of a new Clause to ensure that one of the duties of the school medical officer will be to give attention, not only to the child, but to the conditions in the home surrounding the child which do so much to mould a child's life, mind and body.

Sir Geoffrey Shakespeare: I should like very strongly to support the principle of the Amendment which my hon. Friend would have moved if he had

had the opportunity. I believe that the school medical service, where it is properly run, is the finest part of our health service. Its power for good is beyond calculation. Therefore, if there is, as near as may be, an annual inspection, I am sure that the amount of ill-health and disease that could be prevented would be beyond all calculations. The life of the child at school is to go up by one year, and then two years, and I hope that the President will, as soon as may be, issue instructions to local education authorities to see that this inspection is carried out.

Mr. Messer: I support what has been said in regard to having a definite time for inspection. It appears to me that the local education committee may avoid its obligations unless these are specified. One can see the possibility that when a child is examined, it will display a condition which does not call for immediate treatment. Its condition is entered in the report, and it is quite possible that there may be something, which does not show any symptoms. For instance, early curvature may be tuberculosis of the spine. Sometimes the symptoms of such a condition are not such as to cause a parent to go to a doctor, but because a child has had that examination its condition will be compared with the condition shown at a subsequent examination, and the school medical officer will be able to say, "Here is a condition which requires some attention." There is a possibility that by so doing you will prevent a cripple from being added to the community. That is one instance. I do not want to delay the Committee but I could give many other instances.
Perhaps it is not known that tuberculosis itself is a young person's complaint. If you look at the figures you will find that when you have arrived at the age of 45 you are safe, through having built up a measure of resistance. In the sanatoria of the country, there are large numbers of children of school age being educated, who might never have needed attention in a sanatorium had their condition been discovered earlier. That again is a condition that does not disclose itself sometimes. Often the only symptom is lassitude and tiredness, lack of desire for activity. I think it most important, therefore, that the school medical examination should be at regular periods, so that the medical officer can see what change is taking place


in the child, and can look for an accountability of that change. I cannot follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) on the question of the right of the school medical officer to go into the homes of people. In this matter you have to get the co-operation of the parents. You have to be very careful about that, because it is the very type of parent who has a home which he would prefer not to show, who will be concerned in this matter, and probably you will find yourself in difficulties.

Dr. Guest: May I say that often in the course of my duties I have unofficially entered homes? I have never been refused by parents, because I came to help them.

Mr. Messer: My hon. Friend qualified what he said by saying "unofficial". That is the whole point. There are many parents who are willing to be helped by those whom they regard as friends, but when you have a certain atmosphere created as a result of an examination, and the doctor is to have the right to walk into a home, it will put up the backs of the parents. It is not that I object to the homes being inspected by a doctor. But it is possible, for instance, for a home to be inspected by the sanitary inspector, by the medical officer of health, and now, if this suggestion were adopted, by the school medical officer. Whilst I want to do the best I can for the health of the people, I do want to respect the right of an Englishman to regard his own home as his castle.

Mr. Gallacher: Be a Socialist.

Mr. Messer: I have never regarded myself as being less freedom-loving for being a Socialist. If my hon. Friend would fight for healthy homes there would be no need for the school medical officer to go into them. I urge the necessity for regular routine examination of the child at periods, not left to be determined by the local education authority itself, but laid down in the Bill.

Mr. Butler: I hope we may draw towards our concluding discussions on this Clause as we have a lot of work still to do. I can answer the main points raised, subject to any further questions that may be asked. The first point is whether the inspection shall be at appropriate intervals. The Government prefer

to leave the Bill as drawn, for various very good reasons, one of which may rather surprise the Committee. I would like to tell the Committee that the number of children proceeding through routine inspections was 1,500,000 in the year immediately before the war. With the number of re-inspections that figure came to 2,000,000 and the number of special examinations, which is an examination on the recommendation of the teacher or nurse,. was 1,500,000. Thus a large majority of the whole of the children were in some way covered in the routine of a normal year before the war. We prefer to leave the matter like that, because we do not want to lay down a statutory minimum number of inspections. It very often has this result, that a doctor spends a great deal of his time looking at healthy children and is not able to devote all the time he would wish to cases that need attention. We suggest that there shall be these appropriate and regular routine inspections generally. We also suggest that the nurses shall refer to the doctors the cases that need attention.
In answer to the point put by the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes) who wanted to know how the Minister could watch this matter, I would refer the Committee to Clause 74, the first part of which requires every local education authority to furnish to the Minister of Health such particulars that he may from time to time require of the arrangements made by the authority in the exercise of their functions relating to medical inspections and treatment. That means that the Minister, through his colleague the Minister of Health, with whom he works in this matter, will be brought into the picture, and the Bill is not silent on this particular point.
The hon. Member for North Islington (Dr. Guest) raised the question of going into the home. I have made inquiries as to the people who already go into the homes. The medical officer of health, the sanitary inspector, and the health visitor have certain rights of entry for public health purposes, in connection with the spread of infection, and so forth; and we do not think it would be right to include an extra duty on the school medical officer to go into people's homes. It is quite different for the hon. Gentleman, with his friendly characteristics, to go into a home unofficially from the school medical officer


being expected to do so, in addition to all those others. Moreover, treatment does not include treatment in the pupil's home, except in accordance with arrangements made under Clause 73. Under that Clause a school doctor could go in in the case of a child having a disease of a character so serious that it is impossible to educate the child at school. We do not think that this extra power should be added, but we think that the school medical service should obtain its information from the child's own doctor, or from the public health authorities, which would make it perfectly possible for the school medical service to be fully informed of what was going on. Those are the main points which have been raised on the Clause, which, as has been pointed out by several speakers, is an important one. In view of the fact that we have a great deal more work to do to-day, I hope that we shall now make progress.

Sir E. Graham-Little: This is a medical question, simply and solely. I would ask the Committee to pay some attention to expert medical reaction to this Clause. Those who are interested—and everyone ought to be interested—should read the "British Medical Journal" for 15th January. A very excellent article appeared on that date, giving the reason why there ought to be very material alteration in this Clause. One of the difficulties is the sidetracking of the family practitioner that is taking place. Everybody in this Committee pays lip-service to the importance of the family practitioner, but what is going to be his position if these arrangements are carried out?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Charles Williams): The answer to that is that we are not discussing the position of the family practitioner on this Clause.

Sir E. Graham-Little: May I make some observations on what is to be and what is not to be desired? The inspection and treatment of school children between the ages of two and 18 are to be carried out by the school medical officer. In paragraph 73 of the White Paper on Educational Reconstruction, the proviso is made that, for the school medical service to carry out its functions, the co-operation of the "State Medical Service" will be required. I would ask the Committee to consider what is the probability of a State

Medical Service being instituted by 1st April, 1945. Surely, the position with regard to the health service is not such at this moment as to give any promise of that being possible. But the matter is much more important than that. If the inspection and treatment of school children from two to 18 is to be a function of the school medical officer, without any reference at all to the family practitioner—and that is what would happen—a very unfortunate position will arise. Some of the consequences have been mentioned to-day. It is ridiculous to suppose that a school medical officer, with that enormous influx of work, can make anything like an adequate inspection. Where is the help to come from to make that inspection really valuable? Surely, from the family practitioner. There is going to be antagonism between the family practitioner and the school medical officer, in those circumstances. The school medical officer is usually a young man—quite often it is the first appointment he gets. He is not in a position to ignore the family practitioner, and it is very unfortunate that he should be encouraged to do so.
What is the present practice? I have some knowledge of that, because for 26 years I have been an honorary physician to one of the largest children's hospitals in the East End of London. A family practitioner, if he finds a case that he cannot deal with, has no difficulty in sending that case to a hospital for further advice. The specialist at the hospital is a much more valuable assistant in those conditions than the school medical officer, and I do not think we are going to change things for the better if we are going to rely chiefly upon the school medical officer for diagnosis and treatment. How far is a parent to have any real say in the matter of treatment? Is he to be ignored, as he is being ignored in so many other matters by Clauses in this Bill? The parent, under this Bill, seems to be regarded as entirely irresponsible. The time, certainly, has not arrived for taking so great a step in the medical treatment of school children, before we have some further knowledge of what is going to happen to the general health service. The chaos at the present moment is unbelievable. The school medical officer will treat the school child only at the school. He has no right to make any visits to the home. If any treatment at the home is required, that is the function of quite another person. I


think there is a very strong case for reconsideration of this Clause. There can be no question that no Clause in any Bill could excite more opposition from the medical profession than this Clause does.

Mr. Rain: Sub-section (3) provides for the provision of free medical treatment. Free medical treatment is defined in Clause 103. It appears to include hospital treatment. My right hon. Friend will know that a charge has to be made for hospital treatment, and that the parents are assessed. That appears to conflict with this idea of free medical treatment. If the child is sent to a voluntary hospital, the hospital is entitled to make a charge. What arrangements will my right hon. Friend make to ensure that the voluntary hospital does not make a charge? I do not suppose that he is prepared to answer that question now, but the point ought to be looked into, because there appears to be a contradiction between the concept of free medical treatment and the concept of charging, which is required in a local authority hospital, and which is the practice in a voluntary hospital.

Mr. Butler: I will look into the point.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 47.—(Provision of milk and meals at schools maintained by local education authorities.)

Mr. Parker: I beg to move, in page 39, line 35, after "providing," to insert "free."
I would like to discuss this Amendment together with my next Amendment, which is consequential. Many of us take the view that not only should the medical service be free, but that the provision of milk and meals in schools also should be free. If children are to get full benefit from their education, they must be properly fed, and we do not take the view that the system should be continued of collecting money, provided by their parents, from some school children for their meals, and not from others. We do not think that this distinction should be made between two types of children, one of which may be better off than the other. The provision of free school meals as a matter of course, is not only necessary for building the physique of children,

but it enables them to benefit in other ways. It enables the school to be run as a whole, from the time it meets in the morning to the time it breaks up in the afternoon. The point was made many years ago by Sidney Webb, that if you had a school in which the meals were taken by the school as a whole, you would get, in the running of the school in the day-time, most of the advantages of a boarding school, from the fact that you would have the whole day to play with in the arrangement of your programme.
Secondly, many of us take the view that, if you are providing meals as a matter of course, you can raise the nutritional standards of the population much more rapidly than if you do not. Many hon. Members will have had the experience, during the time of the evacuation, of receiving letters from different parts of the country, from parents or from people looking after children who had been evacuated. As an example of letters which I myself received, I was told about children evacuated into Norfolk who had been accustomed to having bread and jam for most of their meals, and who were surprised to get breakfast foods and salads. They thought that they were being starved. The growth of the school meals service has led to a great raising of the nutritional standards of school children, not only because the children have been fed at school, but because parents have copied the school in providing foods which children have grown to like at school. Many of us feel that if you have school meals, as a normal part of the school programme, for all children, as a matter of course, the educational work will go forward more rapidly. Through building up the physique of the children, you will get a healthier population as a whole, while, as a result, the children will benefit far more from the education given them.

Mr. Butter: I think I may be able to curtail discussion on the Clause if I explain why the Clause is drawn in general terms. The Clause has been drafted in these general terms to give the Minister power to decide certain matters, and, when I come to move an Amendment in my own name later, I think it will be seen that we want to meet every point of view. The point raised by the hon. Member is one which I think can also be understood, but I hope he will not press his Amend-


ment when I tell the Committee what the Government have in mind. The position is this. The present situation regarding school meals will carry on normally until Part II of this Bill comes into operation, that is, on 1st April, 1945. After that, were there no such power to make Regulations, there would be no power to continue the present service of meals. Therefore, we have taken power by Regulation. Why have we not defined the situation more closely in the Bill and referred to the possibility of free meals? The answer is this—and it is letting out no secret to state it. We do hope that, in due course, the Government will come forward with their policy of social security, and, in that case, it will be necessary to frame our Regulations so as to fit in with any general scheme that may be introduced. For example, there have been Government statements on family allowances. The question of school milk has been mentioned by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it would be necessary, in the event of such a happy occasion as the Government's introduction of a scheme for social security, to adjust the provision of school meals and milk to fit in with the Government's policy. That is why we have been obliged to keep this Clause elastic. I hope that, with that assurance, that the Government would bring its social security policy in line with the school meals policy, the Committee will not need to spend too long on this Clause to-day.
I should like to thank the hon. Member for the statement he made about the school meals service. Three years ago, 300,000 children were taking school meals; to-day, the number is about 1,500,000. At present, one in three of all pupils present in school are getting meals in school; in secondary schools, the figure exceeds one in two. There has been a great administrative drive during the last 12 months and very nearly half a million more children are taking school meals. This drive reflects the very greatest credit on local authorities and all the officers concerned. The Government attach first-class importance to this drive, and I myself attach the greatest importance to it. I think it is extremely satisfactory that the hon. Member should have moved his Amendment in the spirit in which he has done, but I hope that, as I have given him the reason, he will not desire to press it.

Mr. Parker: What percentage of meals at present are paid for?

Mr. Butler: I have not got the exact figures, but the normal procedure is to charge about 5d. for the cost of the food, except in necessitous cases, where there is no charge.

Mr. Cove: I want an assurance from the Chair that the Amendments down on the Paper regarding the arrangement for school meals will not be passed over. There was a phrase in the right hon. Gentleman's speech which rather made me feel that they might be. I hope that is not so.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am not quite sure to which Amendment the hon. Member is referring. It was rather understood—and perhaps I ought to have said this earlier—that a general discussion on free meals should take place here. I think that was the idea of the Chair.

Mr. Cove: There is an Amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman himself, and there are also Amendments in my name. I am making representations that we may have the chance to discuss the points on the Minister's Amendment.

The Deputy-Chairman: On the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, possibly, it may be suitable to do so.

Dr. Haden Guest: On the subject of free meals, I hope the Minister will remember that there is more at stake than merely giving children who are necessitous meals without payment. It is most undesirable that, in any school, there should be two classes of children—those who pay for their meals and those who do not. Undoubtedly, we ought to parallel free education with free meals at school. It is even more necessary. If I had to choose myself whether my own children were fed or educated, I would certainly have them fed first, and so would any other sensible man in this Committee. I feel that we should have a little more information from the Minister. He said very persuasively that one in three of the children, in elementary schools in general, were receiving school meals or milk, or school meals as well as milk. That means that two out of three are not being fed—that only 33 per cent. are being fed and 66 per cent. are not being fed.

Mr. Butler: Some of them live near the schools.

Dr. Guest: My own feeling is very strong indeed, that only 33 per cent. are being fed, and I am glad the number has gone up from the 26 per cent. of a little while ago, after there had been a strong administrative drive in the direction of the provision of meals. I have been concerned with trying to get school meals for children for a very long period—about 40 years. There has always been the best possible support expressed about the desirability of feeding children, but not until the war brought the possibility of the starvation of children, have we been able to provide for the feeding of this number of children in school. I consider that it is not a satisfactory performance. The Government ought to lay down definitely that on a certain date they propose that all children in school shall be certified as being adequately fed, and, preferably, that they shall be fed in schools, because I am convinced that that is the only way of getting adequate feeding. We have now reached a time when children, and the feeding of children, are at a premium. They have a priority. The Minister is not going to tell us that that priority will always continue. No one would be more delighted than I would if it did but I do not think that will be so. We ought to have an assurance that the Minister will give very careful consideration to this point. I should like to see this Amendment for free meals pressed to a Division, to see how many people in the Committee would venture to vote against something which is an obvious piece of commonsense, quite apart from being humanitarian.

Mr. R. Morgan: Is the hon. Member assuming that the parents of these children do not feed them at home? I know parents who would go without themselves, in order to feed their children, and I think it is a very wrong assumption and a libel on parents.

Dr. Guest: I am not assuming that all children are not fed, but I know that some are not properly fed. It is not a question of having money. I remember some years ago I made inquiries into the medical conditions of some of the very largest and best-known public schools in this country, and in some of the very best public schools, those whose names are historic, I found, from the

medical officers concerned, evidence of definite malnutrition in certain cases because parents did not understand how to feed their children. The Minister may think this is not in Order, but I hope it is as much in Order as some of the discussion which we have had already.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member himself does not think this is in Order. I was going to point out to him that it is impossible to go into the history of every individual Member and what he has done in the past. It is quite simple to keep to the point.

Dr. Guest: I do not want to prolong the discussion unduly, but I hope that, on this simple question of feeding children, the Minister will give an assurance that the Government are going to make 100 per cent. their objective, instead of the 75 per cent, which, I understand, the Board of Education have made their objective. If he will give that assurance, possibly I will withdraw my suggestion of a Division.

Mr. Cove: I could not follow the hon. Member on this question. The school feeding scheme has been a magnificent thing, particularly during the war, and I congratulate the Board and the Minister on the drive that has been behind it. If I could get Socialism as quickly in this country, I should be very well satisfied. But I want to see better facilities, and better staffing—staff definitely appointed for the purpose of feeding and so on. We have a lot of leeway to make up. Children are being fed in ordinary schools where there were no facilities for it at the beginning of the war. I must say that, though I am mostly a critic of the Government, in this case, quite definitely, there has been a magnificent achievement under very great difficulties. If I could get an instalment of the Socialism I want as quickly as this, I would take off my hat and congratulate the Minister.

Captain Cobb: I rise in order to remove a misapprehension which appears to rest in the mind of the Minister. If he imagines that every Member of the Committee is jumping for joy at the prospect of the provision of completely free meals far every member of the school population, he is mistaken. I am one of those who do not believe that social reform means the pauperisation of the population. If what is meant is free meals in necessitous


cases, I am all in favour of it, but this sort of legislation, to remove the responsibilities of parents, is something to which I object.

Mr. Colegate: I wish to protest very strongly against the speech from the other side of the Committee with regard to the 100 per cent. objective for the feeding of children in school. It may be that the county, part of which I have the honour to represent, has a higher standard than that of the hon. Member who has spoken, but a large number of parents, from those living in cottages upwards, give their children most excellent meals in the middle of the day. The mothers look forward with the greatest pleasure to having their children at a family meal, and I think that anyone who knows anything about children—and I have some myself—knows that it is one of the features of a happy family life. We all know that there are necessitous children, and, as the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove) has said, considerable progress has been made to remove that blot on the school parent; but do not let it go forth that the majority of parents do not feed their children adequately, and that they do not look forward to the midday break when they can sit down to a meal with their children.

Mr. Lindsay: I want to ask a question about the social security measure. Do not let us fool ourselves about school feeding. The Board and the local authorities have done an extremely good job. The main fact is that it is 100 per cent.

Mr. Butler: It is only 100 per cent. for equipment. There is a sliding scale for other expenditure.

Mr. Lindsay: And it goes up to 70 per cent. and 90 per cent., I think. The other point is that we are rationed, and, therefore, these are very important parts of the increase. The reason for this is not to cast any aspersions on the work that has been done, but to see that these conditions may not continue after the war. Not long ago the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when Home Secretary, made a statement about children's allowances. Eight shillings was suddenly cut down to 5s. and a portion was given in kind. My right hon. Friend said that this proposal will be announced with the Government's policy on social security. No one could

be more pleased than I to know that this dovetailing between one Department and another is to happen. We have not seen it on the question of juvenile delinquency between the Home Office and the Ministry of Labour, as announced to-day. We would like to know whether this is to be in lieu of meals and milk. Can my right hon. Friend give an indication of the policy? He simply says that it is to be announced later.

Mr. Butler: I am not responsible for Government policy in this matter, and that is why I cannot make any announcement in this Debate, but I want to dovetail into the policy of children's meals and milk what is intended by this provision, and that is to be done by regulations. The matter will come before the House which will then be able to decide, and in the light of the decision of the House, with whom the matter still rests, these Regulations can be drawn.

Mr. Woodburn: Unnecessary heat was engendered over the last point about free meals. No one wishes to suggest that two-thirds of the children in schools are being neglected under the present scheme. At the same time, this may have the effect that my hon. Friend did not want it to have, and that is, that it might exclude necessitous children from getting the meals. Children are proud, and I am informed by medical officers of health that children will not confess in school that their parents are necessitous, but would sooner do without the food. Therefore, you have the tragedy that, although the Minister is willing to provide meals, children who ought to have the meals will not take them because they do not want to humiliate themselves and because a means test is imposed. Children are cruel to children and if any child is necessitous, other children do not mind reminding it of the fact in the playground, and it introduces a very bad spirit indeed.

Mr. Cove: Does my hon. Friend mean to say that Johnny would say to Tommy, in the playground, "You have free meals."

Mr. Woodburn: Yes.

The Deputy-Chairman: Must we pursue this further?

Mr. Magnay: If I remember rightly, the Scottish Education Bill, less than two years ago, provided a means test.

The Deputy-Chairman: Then the hon. Member cannot refer to it here.

Mr. Woodburn: We are dealing with a different case. It has been said that all children should be given free meals, and hon. Members opposite have said that only necessitous children should be given free meals. I was pointing out that the financial barrier had an effect on necessitous children who required meals. Children are very peculiar.

Captain Cobb: They are only peculiar in Scotland.

Mr. Woodburn: They are very proud in Scotland.

Captain Cobb: "Peculiar," I said.

Mr. Woodburn: They are very proud and would rather starve than accept humiliation. Adequate school meals should be provided, not only from the point of view of their bodies, but as part of their education in good manners, good taste and other things.

The Deputy-Chairman: Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw the Amendment?

Mr. Parker: Yes, Sir.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to move, in page 39, line 36, to leave out "in attendance," and to insert "on the rolls."

Mr. Butler: I am advised that it would not be wise to press the Amendment, for two reasons, first, because the expression "on the rolls" is rather out of date, and the correct expression would be "registered pupils." It is only a technical matter. The other reason is that there is no need for the Amendment, since the present Clause enables the benefits mentioned in the Clause to be provided on days they do not attend, that is, during the holidays. It is not necessary to define the Clause more closely and I do not think that my hon. Friend need be apprehensive.

Sir J. Mellor: In view of the explanation of my right hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 39, line 41, to leave out "and," and to insert:
(including any buildings or equipment to be provided) and as to.

This is the first of a series of Amendments proposed by the Government, and it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I mentioned the various proposals in one general series of remarks. There is, for example, the present Amendment referring to the need for making regulations about equipment, and there are one or two further Amendments, the main one of which is in page 39, line 44, about not imposing upon teachers at any school or college certain duties. The object of the Amendments which run together are twofold, first to enable regulations to be made on the subject of the buildings and equipment to be provided, which is a necessary provision, and secondly, to attempt to limit the duties of teachers in regard to these meals. The matter has been put before us in a very striking manner by teachers themselves and by others interested in their welfare. There is no doubt that if the matter is left undefined by the Committee, teachers might have put upon them duties which would be extraneous and might become very heavy indeed. If the teachers were expected to cook and serve and then to supervise meals as well, they would find the only complete break in the middle of the day completely removed, and furthermore, the duty of supervising meals would turn their service into one of drudgery.
I would like to pay tribute to the work that teachers have done in schools in respect of the provision of meals during war time. They have taken on very considerable extra burdens and as there is no doubt that these burdens should not be part of the teacher's lot, these regulations are drawn in such a way that the teacher can help with the meals and in such a way as not to impose upon teachers duties on days when the school or college is not open for the supervision of pupils. That means that the general duty of the teacher shall be one of supervising the children taking part in the daily act of the meal, which is part of the school life. I feel that no teacher will think that it is other than a pleasant duty. I hope that those who are interested in the furtherance of the provision of meals, will agree that the ideal will be when we can get sufficient staff, to run meals properly behind the schools. It involves a considerable amount of labour, and in various parts of the country we have depended upon persons who have been able to come in to help, including such organisations as the W.V.S. and others who help


with canteens. To all of them I would like to pay tribute. In looking ahead, we hope that the authorities will so organise the meals that the teachers in. taking part in the meals and helping to supervise do not get such duties put upon them which are too much, physically and mentally, for them to carry out.

Mr. Cove: I want to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the approach that he has made to this question. He has met very largely the desire of the teachers. Emphasis is placed on the fact that teachers should be teachers. During the war, teachers have had to render services outside teaching to the detriment of the teaching service for which they have been trained and appointed. That was inevitable during the war. Teachers have, indeed, rendered great service in this respect but we are dealing with the future and a permanent scheme. It will be generally accepted that the Minister has met the main desires of the teachers in what he now proposes. I hope that in the future there will be an opportunity to appoint a regular staff to see to the school meals. We do not want teachers, after long training in colleges and universities, directed to jobs for which they have not been trained. This will meet the anxiety and the sort of nervous tension which has grown up since the war in the teaching service, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the approach he has made to it.

Mr. R. Morgan: I should like to endorse what has been said by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove). I understand, Mr. Williams, that we are also considering the second Amendment which is to be proposed by the Minister.

The Deputy-Chairman: We are having a discussion on the general question, but we have already talked a good deal on it.

Mr. Morgan: I am as anxious as anybody on the Front Bench to get on with the Bill. I very much appreciate what the Minister has said about teachers assisting in the provision of meals. The Amendment is rather of a negative character and I would like to see a more positive form which enjoins the local authority to provide the necessary staff to do the work so well done by the teachers in the past.

Captain Pluge: Despite what my right hon. Friend has said about Clause 47, the purpose of the Amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey and Otley (Sir G. Gibson) lay in the fact that teachers should not become nursery maids. Some mention should be made of what can be done to permit teachers to have some assistance in the giving of meals. The difficulty in which teachers are placed in serving the meals is that this extraneous duty occupies a considerable amount of their time in the school. The primary purpose of a school teacher is to educate children and not to feed or clothe or bathe them. Education should come first. "Milking time" as the children call it, is another way in which qualified teachers are made to waste their time. What with lack of accommodation, spilt milk, accountancy for those who pay daily, or weekly, or for their sisters and brothers, or not at all, the time passes, and the children go home knowing little more than they did before. If some reference were made in this Clause to the utilisation of domestic workers, it would make it much easier for the teachers to devote their time and knowledge to providing what is necessary for the children, namely to be taught according to the curriculum.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 39, line 42, leave out "thereof," and insert "of such milk, meals or refreshment."

In line 44, after "regulations," insert:
shall not impose upon teachers at any school or college duties upon days on which the school or college is not open for instruction, or duties in respect of meals other than the supervision of the pupils and."—[Mr. Butler.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Professor Gruffydd: This Clause, as amended, now prescribes the directions to be given to three classes in the carrying out of duties in connection with the feeding of children and giving them free milk. We have had assurance that no extra duties will be laid upon the teachers, but since no assistance is provided to the teachers for carrying out these duties, it seems to me certain that the teachers will be called upon to help. Surely if we make provision here for carrying out the intention to feed the children, if some of the


people are mentioned, all should be mentioned, otherwise it will be assumed that the people mentioned will be all that are concerned.

Mr. Butler: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, but the very words that are in this Clause, for example, "the facilities to be afforded," "the manner in which," and so forth, give an opportunity of making such regulation as will relieve the teachers of the burden which falls upon them. I have had an opportunity of discussing this with the teachers, and I think they are satisfied at the way in which we have tried to meet them.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clauses 48 to 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 51.—(Provision of facilities for recreation and social and physical training.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 41, line 5, to leave out "For the purpose of securing," and to insert:
It shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure.
This was put down by my right hon. Friend arising out of the discussion on playing fields which was initiated on an Amendment by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Sir W. James). This Amendment, with the next one on the Order Paper, will carry out the pledge which my right hon. Friend gave on that occasion.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 41, line 8, after "training," insert "and for that purpose."—[Mr. Ede.]

Mr. Lindsay: I beg to move, in page 41, line 17, at the end, to insert:
In securing the provision of such facilities as aforesaid every local education authority shall in particular have regard to the work of voluntary organisations engaged in youth service within its area.
This is the only mention in the whole Bill of a very large amount of work which is not theoretical but which is actually going on from one end of the country to the other. That is the work conducted by the voluntary organisations in connection with youth. There is no mention in the Bill of this work, and the voluntary organisations themselves feel that these words would make clearer their responsibility. The Parliamentary Secretary will

remember that it was the policy, and still is, I think, to have a marriage between the statutory and voluntary bodies in connection with a great deal of this work. I am not saying that Clause 51 is concerned solely with 14's to 18's. It is not. It is concerned with a much wider range, but, incidentally, the voluntary societies are also concerned with a much wider range. I understand that when the Clause says "establish maintain and manage or assist" it means they must be assisted financially. I also understand that this is our old friend Section 86 of the 1921 Act, rewritten and in some ways improved, and I think it was under that Section that it was possible to give the assistance directly to these bodies all over the country. We feel, and I would stress it, and the voluntary societies feel very strongly about this, that this would enshrine the great work they have done in the last few years, and hope to do in the future, in this Bill, and make crystal clear that it is the wish of the Board to maintain the closest relations between the various bodies.

Mr. Barnes: May I ask, for guidance, whether the discussion on this Amendment covers the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Woods), the hon. Member for South Tottenham (Mr. Messer) and myself?

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Barnes: I would like to emphasise to the Parliamentary Secretary that there is considerable anxiety on the position of youth organisations, as he knows. Many organisations have incurred expenditure and created facilities, and we should like to have an assurance that this work will not be overlooked.

Lady Apsley: I should like to support what has been so ably moved, because I feel very strongly that these youth organisations have done a tremendous lot for the country in the past and will continue to do the same in the future. Take the Boy Scouts alone. For what the Scout movement and training have done, only those of us who have been connected with the organisation know what we owe to them. It would be a graceful gesture to that organisation if some mention of the voluntary youth organisations could be inserted in this otherwise most excellent Bill.

Mr. Ede: I join with the tributes that have been paid by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) and the Noble Lady the Member for Central Bristol (Lady Apsley) to the work done by these various voluntary organisations. I succeeded my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock as chairman of the National Youth Committee, and had the advantage of his comradeship on that Committee until the Committee disappeared in the new organisation which was set up. We are both well aware of the great work which was done during the early months of the war, and for a considerable time afterwards, by these voluntary organisations in circumstances of great difficulty. We know that over great areas of the country they had a virtual monopoly at the time the National Youth Committee was started, and nothing in this Bill is intended in any way to limit or discourage that work. Equally, I do not think one could put in words here which might tend, on the exact wording of this Amendment, by suggesting that the voluntary organisation completely covers the field, to afford some local authority the opportunity of saying they would do nothing.
One of the discoveries of the National Youth Committee was that there were types of young people of all varieties which the voluntary organisations did not touch. To some young people these organisations, unfortunately, made no appeal. These words might be construed by an authority that was not anxious to do the job it ought to do within the State service as an opportunity for escape. We cannot accept the words in their present form, although I would not like it to be thought that the mere fact that voluntary organisations are not mentioned in the Bill means that we think their functions can now be dispensed with. My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham South (Mr. Barnes) is, I understand, closely connected with a youth organisation known as "Woodcraft," and I gather from the names supporting the Amendment that that was the organisation which he had particularly in mind. That and similar organisations have their well-established place; there is nothing in the Bill that takes anything away from them. But if my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) will have a talk with me between now and the Report

stage, we will see whether it is possible to put into the Bill a form of words which will recognise the voluntary organisations without discouraging the municipal organisations.

Mr. Lindsay: In that case I will withdraw my Amendment. Those who have supported it want to see words in the Bill in a form which will be acceptable to the Government. I understand that that is what the Parliamentary Secretary undertook to do.

Mr. Ede: The idea in the Bill.

Mr. Lindsay: We want to see the words "youth organisation" in the Bill. We have "education" in and we want those words in. Is that all right?

The Deputy-Chairman: Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw his Amendment?

Mr. Lindsay: Yes.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Captain Cobb: This Clause refers to the establishment and maintenance of playing-fields and playing grounds. Something more should be done in the future to provide adequate playing facilities for schools, particularly for those which are now called elementary schools. Anything more depressing than the average school playground in any industrial town is difficult to discover. It is certain that for a long time to come it is not likely that adequate playing-fields will be available for every school, and I would like to suggest that we should extend the school week to include the holiday on Saturday, in order that there may be a staggering of the use of playing-fields, so that every school in the local authority area should have at least an even money chance of getting one period on those playing-fields. The Parliamentary Secretary is, no doubt, aware that for schools in the Deptford and Bermondsey area a successful experiment was started by the London County Council, which provided a large playing-field on the outskirts of London with temporary classrooms attached. Schools in that congested area went to the playing-field to spend a day there, working and playing, and an extension of that principle would, I think, be a God-send to many other


schools I hope there is a real intention on the part of the Minister' to "ginger-up" some of our backward authorities and to ensure that far better playing facilities are available for our schools.

Mr. E. Harvey: I would like strongly to support what has been said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb). I feel sure that the Government have done a great thing in putting an obligation on local authorities to provide these facilities, and if they can encourage and guide them in the way that has been suggested and impress upon them that when rebuilding old schools and building new ones they should take advantage of the scheme of grouping schools on the principle of what is known as the school base, so that common facilities for playing-fields can be provided, they will get over the economic difficulties which would otherwise create an obstacle towards the attainment of what is the desire of the Government. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will assure us that the Board will give a strong lead to local authorities in this matter. Around some country schools there is plenty of land but no playgrounds or facilities for recreation are available.

Mr. Ede: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Preston (Captain Cobb) and my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. Harvey) may rest assured that the action my right hon. Friend took in response to the recent appeal made by the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Admiral Sir W. James) was a very genuine expression of his own views and those of the Government in this matter. As one who was an elementary schoolmaster for a considerable number of years, I know the great difficulty the majority of our schools have in being able to organise games of the kind that every boy and girl of adolescent age ought to play. I know the wretched small playgrounds in which the only game one can possibly play is "tag," and which are covered with gravel. After having had to pay for footwear for four children, my father used to say that playgrounds were laid down and controlled by people with great interests in the leather industry. Those playgrounds will, I hope, soon become things of the past.
I share the view that local education authorities would be well advised to plan a series of playing fields so that they could be made generally available to schools in the area. Only a few weeks ago the Board sanctioned the purchase, jointly by the Surrey and London County Councils, of 250 acres of land in suburban Surrey for the use of children there and children in South-West London. The Board do regard the question of the provision of adequate playing fields, as opposed to the old-fashioned small playgrounds, as a vital matter. I would like to emphasise the need for the application of this principle to rural as well as urban schools. Often some village schools are worse served in the matter of these facilities and it should be the desire of every local education authority to see that rural school-children have the same facilities that have, in the past, been secured in some areas, in a far greater measure, for urban school-children. The Government desire to see this Clause fully implemented by the local education authorities.

Mr. Lindsay: Am I right in asking whether this Clause buries the National Fitness Council? If so, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to record it as a matter of historical fact.

Mr. Ede: I should not like to say. My hon. Friend was in charge of the corpse. I forget whether he handed the coffin over to me or not.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill" put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 52.—(Cleansing of verminous pupas.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Ede: This Clause has given us a very great deal of trouble. It deals with a very difficult subject, which has to be approached with the utmost delicacy unless one is going to undo any good that might be done by exercising the powers under it. We are not satisfied with the Clause as it stands. We have had many representations with regard to it and I am going to ask the Committee not to let it stand part of the Bill. We will put a new Clause on the Order Paper for the Report stage in sufficient time for hon. Members to see it before they have to


discuss it. I think it would be a waste of time to discuss the Clause now, in view of the fact that we recognise that it will have to have a most drastic overhaul before we can give it to the House.

Question put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 53.—(Provision of transport and other facilities.)

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 42, line 42, to leave out "may" and to insert "shall."
This ensures that it shall be the duty of a local education authority to make arrangements for transport as they consider necessary. There is a further requirement in the Clause but this quite definitely, and without any doubt, makes it the duty of a local education authority to make arrangements for the transport of pupils.

Mr. Stokes: On behalf of my hon. Friends and myself I am glad the Minister has accepted what was originally our Amendment but, in order to clear the matter up, may I ask whether he means that, in cases where the Minister does not direct and where the local authority does not propose, there are means under the Clause which would force local education authorities to provide the necessary transport? I ask because there are cases where transport actually passes the doors of houses and the school to which children are going and yet, because they are denominational children, transport facilities are not provided by the local authorities. I understand that the Amendment provides that the Minister shall direct, and that the local education authority shall carry out the direction, but where there is no direction or suggestion to the local education authority what is the remedy for a person who considers that he has a claim?

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: May I ask a question on terminology? We are often told that "may" is equivalent to "shall". In the Clause we have just taken out of the Bill the word "may" appears in line 34.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think the hon. Member can refer to a previous Clause.

in any other Bill. I am not arguing the principle of the Clause. Does the word "may" in line 34 lay an obligation on the local authority? If the hon. Gentleman will answer that question he will satisfy my conscience completely.

Mr. Ede: I have also been told in my time that the word "may" in certain Clauses is a polite way of saying "shall". [An HON. MEMBER: "Have you believed it?"] It all depends who told me. With regard to this Clause, we desired that there should be no doubt at all, and therefore we propose to insert the word "shall".

Mr. Nicholson: I hope the hon. Gentleman realises that making this concession implies that there is a good deal' less obligation where the word "may" is used.

Mr. McEntee: I had an Amendment to Clause 49, but it was intimated to me that the word that I desired to insert, in connection with school clothing, was not necessary. I am learning too late I ought to have sought an opportunity of moving my Amendment. I was led to believe that the word "may" meant "shall".

Mr. Ede: Whatever the word "may" means in Clause 49, we are determined that this particular word shall be "shall", so that there shall be no doubt about it. With regard to the point put by the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson), I have had the same difficulty put to me on previous occasions, but I am assured that by putting in "shall" here we do not weaken the use of the word "may" in other parts of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) appears to be asking me a question with regard to the next two Amendments on the Paper, which I anticipate will be called, and I propose to deal with his point there. If we take the discussion on all the Amendments together it may possibly save time.

The Deputy-Chairman: Are we going to discuss all the Amendments now?

Hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Ede: I notice that the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Harmon) has put his name to both though, as I understand it, they cancel one another out. He does it in the first place in connection with certain hon. Members, and in the second place as a representative of the Birmingham


Corporation. The position which we desire to establish by this Clause, and which we understand is established, is this. The duty is placed on local education authorities to make arrangements for the provision of transport. If, in fact, they do not and there is a parent, or group of parents, who feel that their children ought to be transported to a particular school, they can make representations to the Minister, who will consider their case and then issue such directions as he thinks fit. That is a rather better way of doing it than the hon. Member for Ipswich suggested, that if the Minister directed there might be some appeal. Our view of the way the Clause will work is that when the authority reaches its decision, and any parents or representatives of parents feel that they have a grievance, they can appeal to the Minister, who will hear their case, and hear what the local education authority has to say in reply, and, on that, issue his directions. We believe that in that way one or two of the difficulties that we have encountered in the earlier stages of the Bill may be to some extent removed, if this machinery can be worked. I hope my hon. Friends will feel that the Government have endeavoured very sincerely to meet the difficulties with which they were confronted.

Mr. Clement Davies: I thank the Minister for changing the word "may" to "shall," because it puts a direct obligation on local authorities instead of leaving it to their discretion. This now applies not merely to groups of children but to individuals, and will greatly help country districts such as those in my part of the country, where little children have to walk four and a half miles each way to school in a hilly district. If this Amendment had not been made a local authority might have said, "The difficulties are too great and we cannot do anything." Now they must face up to the situation, and if they do not provide transport there is an appeal to the Minister, who will consider the circumstances and give directions to the local authority accordingly.

Sir G. Schuster: I should be grateful if the Minister would give us some indication of the purpose for which these powers are to be used. I take it that they may be used effectively to minimise the grievances of parents in single-school areas, but I should be glad to have a

statement from my right hon. Friend on the matter.

Mr. Harvey: I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned that point, because Obviously these powers, extended as they have been by the Amendment, will not only help the individual child who is faced with difficulties of distance, apart from any other difficulty but will help those who do not wish to send their children to a neighbouring council school, but to a school of some religious denomination. It will equally help the children of parents in a single-school area where the school is denominational, who desire to send them to a council school. It will alleviate the position in single-school areas for both kinds of parents. I hope we shall have a clear exposition on that point, because it will give great satisfaction to many who feel that the position at present is a difficult one.

Mr. Cove: I am surprised to find a Nonconformist conscience seeking its escape through physical transport and afraid to face up to the realities of the school in a single-school area. There is no escape by transport from the problem of the single-school area. The Church will still remain in control. Are we to denude the Church school in a village by taking the children from place A to place B, and leave the Church school there? That is not a solution to the problem. The Nonconformists, particularly in England, have not faced the problem. They have been running away from it all the time. Transport will not provide the solution, and I am sorry to find that there are so many people who will take a bus in order to drive away their consciences.

Colonel Sir John Shute (Liverpool, Exchange): I am advised that the substitution of the word "shall" for "may" will not achieve the desired object, because the Clause will then require local authorities to do one of two things, namely, to make such arrangements as they consider necessary or to make such arrangements as the Minister may direct. I am advised by lawyers that if they make such arrangements as they consider necessary, they will have discharged their duty and the Minister will have no call to deal with it in any way.

Mr. Ede: We have gone very carefully into this matter, because we know the importance which some of my hon. Friends


attach to this Clause. We are advised that the machinery under it will work in the way that I suggested, and that placing the duty on the local authority does not relieve them from also carrying out any direction that the Minister may give. It is clear that this Clause may be used in a variety of ways, but I am too good a Nonconformist to intervene between my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Cove), who are also Nonconformists, as to the way in which this Clause could be used by persons of any particular faith or lack of faith.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Sir J. Lamb: Do I understand that the Amendment in my name was not called—in page 43, line 2, at the end, to add:
and persons authorised by the local education authority to accompany them.

The Deputy-Chairman: We had a general agreement in the Committee that the next two Amendments should be discussed with the Minister's Amendment. The Amendment of the hon. Member was not selected.

Sir J. Lamb: I will, therefore, raise the point on this Motion. There is no mention of teachers in the Clause. It gives power for arrangements to be made for the transport of pupils, but there is doubt whether the authorities will be entitled to make arrangements for teachers to accompany the pupils. I hope the Minister will make it clear that there is no question of teachers not being included in the transport. If they are not arrangements should be made for them to be included, because in many cases they should be there for the safe custody of the children during their transport and to enable the teachers to attend school.

Mr. C. Davies: As the Clause has been amended, the local authority "shall" make arrangements for the provision of transport. The obligation is put upon them and it is not at their discretion. When we come to the end of the Clause, having arranged that the bus shall call for these little children of mine, four and a half miles away, the query is whether

anybody is going to fetch them and pay reasonable expenses for their travelling. I can imagine a court, trying to interpret this Clause, getting into real difficulties. They find "shall" at one place in the Clause, and "may" at another place, and they cannot possibly give to one word the interpretation that they give to the other. Is it the intention of the Government that the local authority shall make arrangements for transport and shall also pay reasonable travelling expenses, or is the latter point to be left in their discretion? We ought to have that point cleared up.

Mr. Stokes: I support what the hon. and learned Member has just said, because we need to make it abundantly clear that the local authorities shall pay for the transport, where the Minister so directs.

Mr. Ede: I am advised that the interpretation of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) of the word "may" on page 43 is correct. I assumed that it was, but I took steps to have it checked. I have taken counsel's opinion before, and I have found it more expensive after I had paid the fee than before. Therefore, we shall at the next stage make the necessary Amendment, which I hope will satisfy also the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). If we can satisfy on this point both those Members, we shall have achieved something. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir J. Lamb), I would say that we are advised that the Clause and the powers of the Bill are sufficient to pay for teachers, guides and other persons who may have to accompany the children.

Sir J. Lamb: I am much obliged to the Minister.

Mr. McEntee: Does that mean that teachers will travel free?

Mr. Ede: There are occasions when children are collected to go to a certain school, especially a school for the physically defective, and in those cases it is highly desirable that someone should travel with them. These people are generally known as guides. On very rare occasions they may be teachers. There are also certain peripatetic teachers whose travelling expenses have to be paid. While I do not think they come under this Clause, there is no doubt that we must


allow for the expenses of peripatetic teachers to be paid by the local authority.

Sir J. Lamb: While thanking the Minister for what he has said, may I point out that the words in the Amendment I put on the Paper would have included all persons and authorities?

Sir Irving Albery: In view of the fact that the Minister has just inserted two "shalls" in the Clause, I hope that, on the Report stage, he will carefully examine the whole thing. It will also be the duty of Members of the Committee to examine it to make sure that the necessary "shalls" shall also be put in in other cases.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 55.—(Duty of local education authorities to report to local authorities under 3 & 4 Geo. 5. c. 28 in certain cases.)

Mr. Lindsay: I beg to move, in page 43, line 17, after "authority," to insert:
approved by the Board of Education.

Mr. Ede: If my hon. Friend will refer to Clause 65 (1) he will see that the point which he wishes to raise is covered. The Regulations that have to be made bring in this point of approving the medical officer.

Mr. Lindsay: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 44, line 1, after "school," to insert "not only."
This Amendment, and the following one, have been designed to make the Clause more clear, and I hope the Committee will agree with them.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 44, line 2, after "to," insert:
make him incapable of receiving education, but also if they are such as to."—[Mr. Butler.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 56.—(Adaptation of enactments relating to the employment of children or young persons.)

Mr. Denman: I beg to move, in page 44, line 28, at the end, to add:
(2) The powers of the Secretary of State under section twenty-seven of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, shall be transferred to and exercised by the Minister.
The Amendment proposes a new Subsection, to transfer the powers of approving employment by-laws from the Home Office to the Board of Education. Those who are most interested in the problems of the employment of children regard this as a major Amendment and they ask for the support of the Committee. They have the special reason that where the proposal is the taking of powers from one Department and giving them to another, the Department from whom the powers are to be taken can never defend the transfer, because to do so would put them in an impossible position. Unless they have the authority of the Government, they are bound to resist. It is only if the Committee expresses its view clearly that the Minister can have a reasonable chance of accepting the desire of the Committee.
This demand for transfer to the Board of Education is very old. For at least 20 years we have been wanting to give the Board of Education the power of approving these by-laws, but it has never been the "appropriate moment" up till now. We suggest that the appropriate moment has arrived. There are several reasons. The first is that the local authorities who make the by-laws are being changed. These local authorities have, in the past, frequently been the Part III local education authorities. These are now going, and new authorities are going to be the local education authorities. Some of them will be new to the job, and when the new local education authorities are undertaking the responsibility of making the by-laws, we should have the Board of Education charged with the duty of approving them.
Moreover, throughout the last 20 years, there has been a steady growth of responsiblity in the Board of Education for all aspects of child life. The Board have ceased to be responsible chiefly for mere instruction. They are responsible for the leisure time of the child, for encouraging voluntary organisation and for all the problems of feeding and of health; and in


every way the Board of Education have had their purview of child life enlarged. Now we have a position in which there is this rather small island of child activity, regarding the time spent in employment out of school, which is left to the Home Office to supervise, and which is kept out of the sphere of the Board of Education.
I really suggest that it is time that that was changed. Consider in the future how much the Board of Education will have to do with industry. The growth of technical schools obviously means that education authorities, both local and central, will have to know much more about industry than hitherto. The growth of the young people's colleges will mean the same thing. The education authorities and the Board will, again, have to take cognisance of industrial progress. It follows from that whole process that this little island of activity of youth should also come under their supervision. The issue is perfectly clear and I need not detain the Committee on it.
I cannot end without saying that I move this in no sort of hostility to the Home Office. The Committee on Wage-earning Children, which I represent, has 40 years' experience of the Home Office. They know how consistently the Home Office have had regard to the welfare of the children and how they have administered their powers, such powers as we have given them, in the interests of the children and their welfare. I have no criticism of the Home Office administration, and I should like the Under-Secretary to convey from me my appreciation of what they have done, and for the very pleasant recollections I have had of contacts with them. Having said that I do quite definitely aver that it is time that this was removed from their control and handed over to the Board of Education. I ask the Committee to support that view.

Mr. C. Davies: While I have every sympathy with the mover of the Amendment and those who are supporting him I ask whether this is the place in which to change another Act of Parliament which deals with all manner of things. I have just been looking at it now—prevention of cruelty and exposure to moral and physical danger, cruelty to persons under 16, causing and encouraging seduction, causing or allowing persons under 16 to be used for begging, giving intoxicating

liquor and so on. Then comes Part II, which deals with the employment of young persons, street trading; and after that comes Clause 27 which is supplemental to all that has gone before.

Mr. Denman: Only in Part II.

Mr. Davies: The by-laws made under this Part.

Mr. Denman: That is Part II, not Part I to which the hon. and learned Member has referred.

Mr. Davies: Here is an Act dealing with children and young persons which was passed in 1933, a very general Act. I believe it also codified a number of earlier Statutes. It is one of the longest Statutes on the Statute Book, with any number of schedules and so on. What I do suggest is that if this change is desirable, it ought to be done by a separate piece of legislation and not pushed right into the middle of a Bill which deals with education. I do not know how you can, as part of an Education Act which puts on the Minister the duty of providing for education, put in something entirely new from a long Act dealing with all manner of things in relation to young persons. I think this ought not to be put in at this moment.

Mr. Lindsay: I do not wish to detain the Committee, as there is a very important Clause coming on in a few minutes. I would say that I never heard my hon. and learned Friend make a speech in which he had so little heart. He was obviously saying that this was a bad thing to do. If this is the wrong place to do it let us find the place to do it. For 20 years and more, as my hon. Friend has said, a number of people have been trying to get these powers where they think they should be, that is associated with the education authority. I am getting a little bit disappointed that my right hon. Friend, although he has won at least one victory with the Ministry of Agriculture, is not pressing forward a little more, especially with the Home Office, now on his left, to see that the responsibilities which should attach to his Department do so. We have no quarrel with the Home Office administration as such. It is merely to simplify the thing, to bring to the Board and the local education authority a much clearer responsibility for the child who is growing up. There are


a number of Amendments down. My hon. Friend wishes to abolish this Clause altogether. Other hon. Members wish to abolish this kind of labour for five days a week. I wish to abolish it for the whole term, which is a compromise. How can we get a move on if we have constantly this cross-reference to legislation? I support the Amendment, and it should be interesting to hear the reply.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake): My hon. Friend the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman) has moved the Amendment in very generous terms as regards the Home Office. I am much obliged to him for doing so. I know that Members in various parts of the Committee want to discuss the whole question of juvenile employment on a very wide footing. Whether that will prove to be possible within the Rulings of the Chair and the terms of the Bill I cannot say. I think one thing is clear, that this Amendment raises what is a very narrow point, because it presupposes the existence of the present set-up, the present arrangements. The Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, deals with juvenile employment, and by-laws are made under that Act by the local education authority. The functions at present exercised by the Home Secretary which my hon. Friend would like to see transferred to the President of the Board of Education are the functions of confirming the by-laws made by the local education authorities under that Act.
The point before the Committee is, I think, rather a narrow one. There are certain quasi-judicial functions of examining the by-laws submitted by the local education authorities, inquiring, possibly holding a local inquiry, seeing that the bylaws are in proper form and are not ultra vires and so on. These things are at present the duty of the Home Secretary. My hon. Friend suggests that these duties should be transferred to the President of the Board of Education. I will not trouble the Committee on this narrow point with a description of the present law relating to juvenile employment, or the scope which the by-laws may cover, but I think if a question arises of the transfer of administrative or judicial functions from one Department of State to another the onus of proof is on those who suggest that the change should be made.
Things have grown up, for different reasons, as they are at present. The Home Secretary is responsible in regard to the employment of young persons generally, not only of children, to whom the Acts apply and to whom my hon. Friend referred. The Home Secretary is responsible for the administration of the Shops Acts, the Young Persons (Employment) Act, 1938, certain Acts relating to street trading, and so forth. The Home Secretary, apart from certain specific duties which fall to other Ministers, such as the Ministry of Fuel and Power as regards employment in the mines, has the general field of the employment of young persons within the scope of his office. My hon. Friend suggests that one part of this wide field, in regard to the employment of young persons, should be transferred to the President of the Board of Education—that is, the law relating to the employment of children. Under the Bill, we are raising the minimum age for employment from 12 to 13, in accord with the raising of the school-leaving age; and when the school-leaving age becomes 16, the minimum age for employment will become 14, instead of 12 as at present. We are moving in step, so far as the employment of children is concerned, with the general scheme of this Education Bill.
I think that, when it comes to this question of a transfer of administrative functions, the onus is on my hon. Friend to show that the change would be good. He could do that either by showing that the administration of the Home Secretary has been bad in the past—and I understand that he discards that argument altogether—or by showing that things would be done better by the President of the Board of Education. That is, of course, a purely theoretical case. There are no signs, so far as I am aware, that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education is anxious to take over these duties. What, in fact, would happen would be that part of the law relating to the employment of young persons would then be administered by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education, and the remaining field would have to be supervised and looked after by the Home Secretary. I suggest that it is better to draw a boundary, when you are considering administrative arrangements, between education on the one hand and employment on the other, rather than to draw your boundary at the age of 14, 15,


or 16, and say that up to that age all the activities of the child shall be looked after by one Government Department, and that after that age they shall be looked after by another Government Department. I think that the boundary between education and employment is a good one, from the administrative point of view. My hon. Friend said one thing to which I took a certain amount of exception. He said that my right hon. Friend was becoming responsible for all aspects of the child's life.

Mr. Denman: I did not mean for all aspects, but for an increasing number.

Mr. Peake: We must remember that these young people are not only the raw material of the education authorities, they are young citizens. They have rights, they have duties. Many of our doctrines in regard to the liberty of the subject apply with equal force to these young persons as to adults. My hon. Friend quoted some of the headings of the Children Act, 1933, which was intended to be a complete code of the law so far as it affects children, leaving out only the educational aspect. I suggest that this administration has worked well in the past. At any rate, at present, with Government Departments very much overworked, it would be highly inconvenient to transfer this function of the Home Secretary, which I think he has administered with considerable satisfaction to all concerned for nearly 40 years, and I, therefore, urge that the Amendment should not be pressed.

Sir P. Hannon: Surely, in this great scheme of education the co-ordination of educational activities must be brought under my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Education. How can my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary suggest the education of one section of the community apart from a general scheme of education for which the President of the Board of Education is responsible?

Mr. Peake: I think my hon. Friend has misunderstood me, and that his mind is running on a different subject, possibly the Home Office schools, which we shall come to later. I think that on this question of the transfer of administrative functions there is an overwhelming case against the transfer.

Dr. Morgan: I so seldom agree with the Home Office that I hope I

may be allowed to say that on this occasion I thoroughly agree with the Under-Secretary. Acts relating to the employment of young persons and children should remain under the authority which deals with employment as a whole. The Under-Secretary has said, quite rightly, that children are not only workers but citizens. Take the case of a child who, under very exceptional circumstances arising from this war, may be in the pottery industry—a very dangerous industry, in which workers may be affected in health through silicosis dust, lead poisoning, and matters of that kind. The Home Office have been dealing with these matters, administratively, for years. These are highly technical problems, involving not only the immediate conditions of the worker, but possibly his future health, apart altogether from education. I contend that the Board of Education should be responsible for the child only during the educational period, and that matters relating to his employment—employment conditions, deleterious processes, industrial processes involving hazards and risks, and such matters—should be left to the Home Office. These matters should not be passed on to the Board of Education, which will have as much as it can do to attend to the aspects now covered by the Bill.

Mr. Denman: In justice to this Amendment, I must reply. The Amendment has no relation whatever to the Factory Acts or to any of those Acts which deal with the organised employment of children. What we are now concerned with are the employment by-laws, which regulate the amount of work that schoolchildren may do out of school hours. What I said about the Home Office—which I think was fair to the Home Office, and true—was that they had administered well what we had given them to administer, but that we had given them the wrong things. We ought to have given them an employment code relating to the employment of children of school age. That is what I seek to obtain.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 57.—(Power of local education authorities to prohibit or restrict employment of children.)

The Chairman: The first Amendment which I propose to call is that in the name of the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Parker)—in page 44, line 29, to leave out


Sub-sections (1) and (2), and to insert certain words. I am calling it with some hesitation, but I have decided to do so. The point is quite a narrow one, and I would remind the Committee that this is an Education Bill, and not a Bill relating to the employment of children and young persons. I hope therefore that hon. Members will not go into the whole question of the employment of children and young persons except as related to education.

Mr. Lindsay: I hope that does not mean that a new Clause on this subject can, equally, be ruled out of Order.

The Chairman: I cannot go into the question of new Clauses now.

Mr. Rhys Davies: On a point of Order. I have an Amendment on the Paper, in page 44, line 29, to leave out Sub-sections (1) and (2), and to insert:
() No child under the age of compulsory attendance shall be employed before or after school hours or at week ends or during school holidays.
I have not intervened much on this Education Bill, because hon. Members know much more about it than I do, but I do know just a little about this particular problem of the employment of school children.

Mr. Peake: On a point of Order. I think it would be greatly for the convenience of the Committee if they had some indication how wide the Debate can go on this Amendment. What my hon. Friend's Amendment, of course, does is to take out the operative Sub-sections of Clause 57, which is a rather limited Clause re-enacting Section 94 of the 1921 Act, giving an authority power in regard to a particular child, to order, on the grounds of the effect on its health, that that child should not be employed; and, in place of that to insert a new Sub-section, completely prohibiting the employment of children of school age. I do not see how it is possible to discuss this Amendment except upon a wide basis because the effect of the Amendment, if carried, would be that we should have to repeal the whole of Part II of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, and all the existing law, including the functions of the Home Secretary in relation to the by-laws which we have just been discussing. All that would go by the board. The Amend-

ment, it seems to me, with respect, raises issues of the widest character.

Mr. C. Davies: Can this possibly be within the scope of this Education Bill? As the Under-Secretary for the Home Office has pointed out, the slipping in of these words would have a tremendous effect. In the first place, it looks to me as if it would, straight away, repeal the whole of Part II of the Children and Young Persons Act without making any specific reference to that Act, which deals with employment. In circumstances like that, if such a thing ever carne before the courts, what interpretation would they put upon it? They would find these words in the Measure without any repeal of the previous Act of Parliament, and would then have to try to read these proposed words, in conjunction with that, and make a muddle of the whole thing. I suggest that it is out of Order and outside the scope of this Bill.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will it help if I put it this way? I am astonished at my hon. and learned Friend's argument. I am almost sure I am right in saying that, when Mr. Fisher brought the last Education Bill before the House of Commons he abolished the half-time system in Lancashire in that Measure, and that was certainly interfering with the employment of children in that county. Every time we pass an Education Bill we do affect in many ways the employment of children, even by raising the school-leaving age, and I do not think, therefore, the hon. and learned Member is right in law.

Mr. Lindsay: We did have a sort of understanding that we would keep quiet on this. I am all for having a new Clause, but is it going to be all right?

The Chairman: I have to say, quite frankly, that in my opinion the discussion would be more appropriate on a new Clause if such a Clause was otherwise in Order, but I might have some difficulty in selecting the new Clause if we have a full dress discussion on the same point now. Perhaps the hon. Member who desires to move the Amendment may think it wise not to do so. I could not bind myself on what my views may be on the new Clause before I see it.

Earl Winterton: May I suggest that it is a very novel procedure to accept an Amendment which has the effect of nega-


tiving the whole Clause? If this Amendment is accepted, it makes nonsense of the whole Clause. On another point of Order, Major Milner, would you give consideration to the point that, when this Bill comes into operation next year, it will be in conflict with the Emergency Powers Act, which gives permission, through the Ministry of Agriculture, for the employment of children, which would be prohibited under this Bill?

The Chairman: This is a matter which relates either to education or to the employment of children or to both. If the Amendment relates to education, as in my opinion in this case it does although also relating to employment, then it is proper to discuss it on an Education Bill, particularly as it has been discussed and inserted in previous Education Bills. This particular Clause as drawn also deals specifically with the restriction of employment as it affects education. I therefore selected the Amendment, but indicated to the Committee that I did not propose to allow a wide Debate on the subject of the employment of children as such, and I hope that that might have enabled the Committee to discuss it on those lines. I can only leave the matter in that way, but say for the consideration of the hon. Gentleman moving the Amendment, that in my judgment it would be better discussed on a new Clause, but I cannot give any promise that such a new Clause would be in Order until I see its terms. Naturally, I should have regard to the wishes of the Committee.

Mr. McEntee: This deals with a child outside school life and it comes under a different Department of the Government. I suggest it has no relation at all to actual education.

Mr. C. Davies: I submit that it has nothing to do with education. The Amendment says:
No child under the age of compulsory attendance"—
which is five years of age—
shall be employed before or after school hours, etc.
What is the meaning of that?

Mr. Rhys Davies: On that point of Order, is it not a fact that, in this Clause, the Board of Education has concerned itself because the children's education and

their physical standard may be adversely affected by employment before and after school hours? You could not very well deal with education efficiently if you allowed all children to be employed before and after school hours.

Earl Winterton: I think it is not an unusual request that I have made, Major Milner, and if you are not prepared to give a Ruling now, perhaps you will do so at the commencement of the next Sitting. Will you consider this point? If this Amendment were passed, it would directly nullify the provisions of the Emergency Powers Act, which gives power to the Minister to allow the employment of persons which would not otherwise be allowed. Should we not, therefore, have to amend the Emergency Powers Act? Otherwise we should have passed two Acts of Parliament, one of which contradicts the other.

Mr. Stokes: Might I support my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies)? Are we not talking in the air? This deals with children who do not go to school, and if they do not go to school, they do not have any holidays.

The Chairman: Having regard to the remarks of hon. Members and to what I have said, perhaps the hon. Member will not now wish to move his Amendment?

Mr. Rhys Davies: I propose, in the circumstances, Major Milner, to say what I have in my mind on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. R. Morgan: I beg to move, in page 44, line 30, after "child", to insert "or young person."

Mr. Ede: I thank my hon. Friend for the brevity with which he moved the Amendment. I must be a little longer in replying because this would make a very important change in the law. We have under the Bill, as the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department pointed out, stepped up the definition of "child" in accordance with the school-leaving age. Therefore, successively a child will be a person of 15 and 16 years of age. This Amendment would apply only to children in secondary schools, who were remaining beyond the compulsory school-leaving age, that is, young persons over i6 years of age. It does not appear to be right


that when parents and others are considering the continuance of a child voluntarily at school, beyond the compulsory school-leaving age, they should find the child, by the mere fact of considering him at school, debarred from taking part in any employment. That would be wrong to-day, and I hope that my hon. Friend will not think it necessary to press the Amendment.

Mr. Morgan: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Rhys Davies: I hope that I shall be forgiven if I try to deal with the importance of this Clause as it will affect employment of school children. I hope that I shall carry hon. Friends on this side of the Committee with me because this form of employment is mainly confined to the children of the working class. About 80,000 are so employed, about 70,000 boys and 10,000 girls. That was the last estimate, but I should imagine that during this war the number has increased considerably. I am in favour of the complete abolition of employment of school children; I regard this Clause as the creaking rung in the educational ladder. I have been trying to find out what the actual position is. The hon. Gentleman who spoke about the Home Office dealing with this problem, surely, knows that the model by-laws governing the employment of school children are flouted in many cases. In some schools it is quite possible that there are more children employed under 12 without the knowledge and consent of the ideal authority than there are from 12 years upwards. The regulation of the employment of school children by model by-laws has practically broken down during the war in many cases.
This Clause rather invites the point of view that I wish to put; it assumes that this form of employment is not good for the child. There may be a medical examination, but those who know something about the problem will tell you that the child is often examined when it is too late. A doctor will not know in advance whether a child delivering newspapers or milk in the mornings will ultimately be adversely affected. As I am connected with the distributive trades the problem of children dealing with the distribution

of milk and newspapers is a very intimate one. I am very happy to see one of the most responsible education authorities in the country—the City of Salford Education Committee—last week decided in favour of the complete prohibition of this type of employment. I would not like to think that Parliament is lagging behind local authorities in these matters. I am told that a great deal of juvenile delinquency and truancy arises from the fact that children are employed before and after school hours. I cannot vouch for that, but there is one thing that is certain; there is no doubt that the health of the school child and his educational advancement are affected adversely by this form of employment. I was here when we passed the Employment of Children Act, 1933, and the Shops Act later. If you include the number of hours set aside for homework of a school child, his school hours and employment before and after school it will be found that it is possible for such a child to be engaged for more hours than either the Factory Act or the Shops Act provide as a maximum. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies), whom I respect for his knowledge of the law, will back me, I hope, when I say that there is something wrong with two Acts of Parliament prohibiting the employment of young persons beyond a given number of hours whilst another Statute allows children to be engaged for a longer number of hours.

Sir P. Hannon: Does the hon. Member suggest to the Committee the taking of employment outside school hours is entirely outside the operation of the Acts regarding employment?

Mr. Davies: We have sent certain information to the Board of Education, and they have cases in their files showing that the by-laws governing the employment of school children are being flouted in many areas. I have a letter here from a school master who knows about this. It reads:
It is not uncommon in this agricultural area for employers to pick up 100 to 150 children after school hours between the ages of 8 and 14"—
not 12 and 14—
and convey them to work in the fields till 9.30 p.m., picking peas.
What offends me most is that the managers of some of these schools are the local farmers, the employers of the school children are the same farmers and although


those farmers are the magistrates as well they allow this employment in spite of the law. I am sure if the right hon. Gentleman would tell the Committee all he knows about the employment of school-children the Committee would be willing to vote against this Clause as it stands and go in the Division Lobby with me against school children being employed at all.
Who is to decide under this Clause whether the child's education is adversely affected by his employment? There is no provision for that here. I should imagine that the head teacher or the teacher actually teaching the child should be able to do that. It has been said on the best authority that some of these children are too sleepy and incapable in the classrooms to receive that education provided for them because of this form of employment. When we passed the Employment of Children and Young Persons Bill the argument then was this—and it may be trotted out to-day on behalf of the newspaper proprietors—"Why should not the children earn 2s. or 3s. a week when there is need in the home?" That argument is of no avail to-day; hardly one of these children is employed now because of the economic need at the child's home. Generally speaking, he is employed in order to get pocket money; for buying bicycles and so forth.
Finally, it is little use this House talking about a national health service and a great educational advance if at the same time we are to allow these little people to go out in the streets early in the morning delivering milk and the like. I shall be asked, Who is to do the job? I have lived long enough to see plenty of unemployed in peace times do the work. I hope now that the Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department or the President of the Board of Education will stand up at that Box and tell the Committee that on the information they have got these by-laws are not being implemented and will promise to do something to get rid of this grave anomaly.

Mr. Peake: I think it would be to the advantage of the Committee if I intervened now. It would be much more convenient for us all to take this discussion on another day, when another Clause in suitable form will be before the Committee. My hon. Friend will not, obviously, vote against this Clause standing

part of the Bill. All that Clause 57 does is to re-enact, in slightly altered form, the existing law, Section 94 of the Education Act of 1921, which provides one of the two statutory arrangements for safeguarding children in employment. There is the general legislation, now contained in the Children and Young Persons Act of 1933. As well as that, there is this power in the local education authorities to take up the case of any individual child who appears to be suffering in his health or education through the fact of employment. This is a very valuable power, and -the Clause makes it perfectly clear. It says:
If it appears to a local education authority that any child who is a registered pupil … is being employed in such manner as to be prejudicial to his health or otherwise to render him unfit to obtain the full benefit of the education provided for him, the authority may, by notice in writing … prohibit him 
that is, the employer—
from employing the child, or impose such restrictions. …

Earl Winterton: Is not the best example of that, what has happened over the employment of agricultural labour? Some local authorities have refused to allow children to work in agricultural labour and they have actually exercised their authority.

Mr. Peake: Certainly, it is a power which has existed for over 20 years and has been quite frequently exercised. It is a most valuable power which certainly ought to be part of this Education Bill. It is a thing with which we are all in favour and I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will allow us to leave this Clause with a view to having a further discussion on the question of juvenile employment when a suitable new Clause is before the Committee.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood (Wakefield): I do not follow all the arguments on this, but this is a Bill to reform the law relating to education in England and Wales. There is a body of law relating to the employment of children and young persons, and it surprises me that the Home Office has introduced into this Bill something which impinges on dealing with individual cases. I submit to the Committee that, when we are in process, through the White Paper, of looking after infants below the school-leaving age, developing nursery schools and school nurseries, raising the school-leaving age, when we


are trying to lengthen the school life and the social care of young people up to 15 and 16, it is absurd to permit this anomaly of children being employed before school-time and after school-time. I do not expect my right hon. Friends to handle this problem in the Bill, but I think it a terrible anomaly when we are trying to lengthen the school-leaving age, to permit this absurd situation to continue. I do not believe a new Clause is going to meet the point, but I think it might ease the situation if my right hon. Friend gave some sort of undertaking that when the new Clause comes, the Government will make some announcement of their intention to deal with this problem as an employment problem.
It would be intolerable, indeed it would create doubts in the minds of many people if we passed my right hon. Friend's Bill and still permitted young children to work before and after school hours for a few pence. If we could have some sort of undertaking that the Government would, between now and the introduction of the new Clause, consider this and be prepared to make a statement, I think many of us in the Committee would feel somewhat relieved. I should add that this is not a party issue at all.

Mr. C. Davies: As my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) seemed to think I was unsympathetic towards his desires, I am grateful for the opportunity of saying that nobody feel's more sympathetic or more deeply on this matter than I do. I suffered, because of employment, in my young days perhaps more than any Member on this side, and I intervened earlier in this Debate because I thought this was a matter which ought to be brought within a much wider scope than that provided by this Clause, which is a slight improvement in order to deal with individual cases. I can well understand that it is easy, under this Clause, to deal with cases where a child is being employed by somebody other than a relative. Hon. Members referred to cases in which a child is employed by somebody other than a parent and given some remuneration for doing it, which they could add to the family exchequer. But the one who is likely to suffer the most is the one who works with the family for the family. I am particularly concerned with this matter as it

affects rural areas. We used to be up about six in the morning to start work on the farm. At eight o'clock we left for school and were back by five o'clock and began work on the farm again from 5.30 until eight or nine o'clock. Then, supper over, we started on our home lessons, and many of us rarely saw our beds before midnight or one a.m. because we had to try to win scholarships. We would like to see that sort of thing stopped, and any effort the Government can make to control that will, I am sure, have the strong support of everybody in the Committee who desires that the best education should be given to our children.

Sir I. Albery: I want to draw attention to one small point. This Clause provides that where a child is employed in such a manner as to be prejudicial to his health, the authority may take a certain remedy. I am again obliged to draw attention to the word "may," and to ask that it should be "shall," in view of the interpretation which has recently been placed on the word "may." It is obvious that if a child is employed in circumstances detrimental to his health, it is not a question for the authorities to take no action. They must take action, and I submit that the word "may," should be changed to "shall."

Mr. Peake: In response to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) I would like to make quite clear precisely what is being done in this Bill as regards juvenile employment. At the present time, the minimum age for employment is 12 and the code of the law governs child employment so long as the child remains at school—that is, at present, up to the age of 14 plus. There are in that group about 1,250,000 children. As a result of the raising of the age to 15, by the Bill, the minimum age of employment will be raised from 12 to 13, so that some 600,000 will be taken right outside the possible scope of employment at a stroke of the pen. When the age goes up to 16 the minimum age for employment will automatically begin at 14 under this Bill, without any further legislation, so that the scope of juvenile employment will be greatly diminished. There has been correspondence in "The Times" in January and February, to which my hon. Friend contributed, putting both sides of the issue. Some argued in favour of


some employment for children and others that all employment for children is bad.
We obviously can have an interesting Debate, which will last at least one full day, on this subject of juvenile employment. I am not sure whether that is the wish of hon. Members or whether they would prefer to get the Bill more quickly. The attitude of the Government on this point is that it would not be the right policy to embody in an Education Bill further amendments of the law relating to the employment of children. Such a course would be liable to retard the progress of the Bill and would raise various controversial issues which ought to be considered not in the light of the war-time conditions of to-day but of peace-time conditions, when closer restriction of the employment of school children will become practicable. The fact that the Government have not included more drastic amendments of the law relating to employment than those already mentioned does not mean that they have failed to recognise the importance of the subject. Their view, however, is that any further amendment of the law relating to the employment of school children should not properly be included at present in this Bill but should rather be considered separately, as soon as it is possible to review the situation by reference to normal peace-time conditions rather than the special war-time conditions of to-day. I hope that, with that assurance, hon. Members will permit us to have this Clause, because we undertake that the subject will be reviewed when normal conditions are resumed.

Mr. Greenwood: The right hon. Gentleman really has not helped very much. He has not said any more than I have said. I agree that it is inappropriate to deal with this problem in this Bill. I think myself the Government were foolish to put in Clause 57, because that is trenching on the employment of children and young persons.

Mr. Peake: It is a purely educational matter. It prescribes action by the education authorities.

Mr. Greenwood: I follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument but I still say that the employment of children before and after school hours is also an educational problem. I am not asking for the inclu-

sion of a solution of the problem in this Bill—I realise the difficulty about that—but I still think the Government now have been engaged on this great task of dealing with our child population, in the White Paper from the point of view of health and in this Bill, from the point of view of schooling, and they really ought to submit some parallel legislation dealing with the employment of young people of school age outside school hours. Who would pretend to defend young children working either before or after school hours? I am sure Members would regard that as an intolerable situation. No one dare defend it in public. I never write to "The Times." I do not even read all the letters in "The Times." There may be arguments for and against, but I should imagine that those people who would defend children working after or before school hours, have never done it themselves.
I have not been unreasonable. What I am asking is this. I realise the difficulty of dealing with the problem in this Bill. I regret that even on educational grounds it is dealt with in Clause 57. If there is to be a discussion on a new Clause, all I am asking is that, before that time, the Government should be prepared to come to the Committee with a considered statement and, I hope, an indication that they intend to introduce legislation dealing with this problem. I suggest that I am not asking too much. I think it is reasonable for the Committee to be given some sort of undertaking that when we come to the new Clause, which, in my view, is not appropriate to this Bill, a statement should be made on behalf of the Government as to their intention to straighten out and tidy up the problem of the care of our child population by dealing with the question of employment.

Mr. Butler: I am responsible for this Bill and I am much obliged to my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, of State for the Home Department for the clear answer he gave on the subject of Government policy. I will attempt further to elucidate the crystal-clear mind of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). In the Education Bill, this Clause has been included, in order that the law relating to the employment of schoolchildren shall be amended, pari passu with the raising of the school age. We had to include


some sort of machinery. The right hon. Gentleman wants to know whether the Government will make a general statement on clearing up the law with regard to the employment of schoolchildren. That is a matter which really concerns my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I can, at once, give the Committee an assurance that I shall, in the light of the discussions in the Committee to-day, discuss the matter with the Home Secretary. Naturally, I will report the result of our conversation to the Committee on the new Clause or on the later stages of the Bill, provided the Committee does not tie me or the Home Secretary down to views other than those expressed by the Under-Secretary just now. No one is keener than the Government that, coincident with this legislation, we should try to deal with the employment of children. The real difficulty is that we are in the middle of a war and it is difficult to clear the matter up in war-time.
Mr. Greenwood: Even in the difficulties of war-time we have managed to have an Education Bill before the House, so I dismiss that as an argument. I could not, of course, ask my right hon. Friend to commit the Home Secretary. Nobody in my absence would commit me to anything, but I understand my right hon. Friend's point of view. I gather that he will now discuss this question with the Home Secretary with a view to making a statement later. So far as I am concerned, I am prepared to leave the matter there.

Sir I. Albery: In view of the remarks that have been made by the Parliamentary Secretary as to the difference in meaning of the words "may" and "shall," I must ask if I may have a reply to the question which I raised just now.

Mr. Butler: As we are having a full-dress review of these matters, I may as well examine with a miscroscope the question of "may" and "shall." As I am apparently in a generous mood, I will undertake to look -up the word "may" in any other place where I find it in the Bill.

Sir I. Albery: I rather take exception to my right hon. Friend's suggestion that this is a microscopic matter and of no importance. It was his own Parliamentary Secretary who emphasised its importance.

Mr. Butler: I said that I would examine it with a microscope, so important is it. I did not say it was microscopic.

Mr. McEntee: Will the Minister also examine the words "may" and "shall" in Clause 49?

Mr. Denman: I must express profound regret at the lack of co-operative effort on the part of the Government to the suggestions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood). In 1918 we boldly tackled the problem of juvenile employment in the then Education Bill. We abolished the part-time system and we brought the whole of the by-laws into pretty well the form in which they were taken over in the Act to which my right hon. Friend has referred. We realised that it was no use raising the school-leaving age unless we also ensured that the leisure time of the child was not misused and wasted in evil employment. The way that has been left—

Mr. Butler: May I interrupt my hon. Friend? I did attempt to help the Committee 'by making a statement, but really, it, on every occasion the Government try to help the Committee the Debate is simply to be prolonged, we shall be here all night. I have to weigh the consideration whether this Committee wishes to make progress with the Bill or not. I am here to help them if they do, but if they do not, I cannot help them.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 59.—(Prohibition of fees in schools maintained by local education authorities and in young people's colleges.)

Mr. Butter: I beg to move,
That consideration of Clause 59 be postponed until after the consideration of Clause 71.
This is a Clause to which hon. Members on all sides of the Committee attach great importance, and I think we might be able to make more progress on other Clauses on which there are fewer Amendments. I think it might be more convenient to postpone Clause 59 and begin it upon the next Sitting Day, after we have finished with Clause 71.

Mr. Greenwood: I think that might be for the convenience of the Committee. There are certain big issues which ought not to be discussed at this time of the day, and I do not think there are many matters otherwise which need detain us very long. I hope that the Committee will agree with the proposed postponement.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 61.—(Exemption of school buildings from building bye-laws under local Acts.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Butler: I wish to leave out Clause 61 and to deal with it by another method. The proposals in the Clause need expanding to cover school premises of grant-aided and other maintained schools. In the circumstances, we suggest that it would be wiser to leave out this Clause and to deal with it under the Eighth Schedule later on.

Mr. C. Davies: Do I understand that these proposals will be inserted in the Eighth Schedule, or is the Minister to propose a new Clause?

Mr. Butler: I shall propose that an Amendment of Section 71 of the Act of 1936 be put in the Eighth Schedule to the Bill. I mentioned it before, but I was rather elliptic.

Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

CLAUSE 62.—(Exemption of auxiliary schools from rates.)

Captain Cobb: I beg to move, in page 47, line 12, after the second "school," to insert:
or any other school in receipt of grant in so far as that school provides education to children living in the area on which rates are charged up to that school.
The purpose of this Amendment is to exempt schools receiving grants from the Board of Education from rates in so far as they are providing education for the children in that area in which the school is situated. It is a limited Amendment, and I hope my right hon. Friend may be prepared to accept it in order that they may be, in so far as the local children are concerned, in the same position as the

local authority schools in the area. I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not need to be reminded of the extremely embarrassing position in which a number of these direct-grant schools are placed in cases where, for instance, a well-to-do old boy presents them with a swimming bath, laboratory or something of that sort. A handsome gift of that kind becomes, in fact, a financial burden to the school. I hope my right hon. Friend may accept either one of these Amendments or the intention contained in them.

Mr. Loftus: I take it, Major Milner, that you do not intend to call the Amendment standing in my name.

The Chairman: That is so.

Mr. Loftus: In that case might I speak generally on the point in support of the Amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend? I wish to refer very briefly to the position under this Clause as it stands. I take it that all schools receiving grants-in-aid from the local authority are exempt from rates. That, broadly, is the position of certain schools referred to later on in the Bill which get direct grants through the Ministry, and under Clause 93, paragraph (b), obtain direct grants for educational purposes, including the purposes of educational research. It does seems to me illogical that if any school is sufficiently worthy to receive public money, whether from the local authority or direct through the taxes from the Minister, that equality of treatment should not apply as regards exemption from rates. I hope that the Minister will see his way to say that any school receiving public money deserves exemption from the burden of rates.

Mr. Ede: This Amendment deals with a very complicated point in the very complicated rating system of this country. At the present time elementary schools, if they are provided by the county council or the local education authority, are rated. Schools which are secondary schools which are provided by the local education authority are rated. Secondary schools which are not provided by the local education authority but are secondary schools are rated. Voluntary elementary schools are exempt from rating. That is the position at the moment. We have altered the law in this Bill whereby certain voluntary schools which were exempt from rating become secondary


schools. If we left the law as it stands all the new senior schools which were erected or may be erected under the Act of 1936 by the various denominations would become liable for rating. We were faced with the difficulty of what we were to do. Were we to say, "Because you have become secondary schools, you shall suffer the disabilities that have always attached hitherto to voluntary secondary schools"? We came to the conclusion that that would be an intolerable position in which to put them, so we amended the law favourably to the present voluntary schools, irrespective of their denominations. This Amendment seeks to bring in a new group of schools, other than the auxiliary schools in the Bill. We have extended the exemption from rating under the Bill to those voluntary schools which get deficiency grant now from the local education authority and have to pay rates at the moment. We have put them in the same position as the auxiliary elementary schools.

Dr. Morgan: Why not put all of them in that category?

Mr. Ede: I know that a man pays his taxes in sorrow, and his rates in anger. My hon. Friend's proposal might deprive him of a great deal of anger; but it would deprive education of a great deal of its grants, and the local authorities of a great deal of their revenue. That is a policy we cannot discuss on this Clause. Those schools which it is now sought to include are left, under the Bill as it stands—Clause 59 rot having been discussed—with the right to charge fees. We have deprived the secondary schools which hitherto charged fees of the right to charge fees if they become auxiliary schools, as the new phrase goes, under the Bill. That is the distinction which is drawn for the future. Those schools which are allowed the right to charge fees are left with the obligation to pay rates.
We have extended this over a wide range of schools. I have always found it difficult to understand the rating principle by which council schools have had to pay rates, because I understand that the general basis of the law is that one should take into account the rent which a person would be prepared to pay every year to use the premises for the particular purposes for which they are used. I cannot see what rent people would be prepared to pay to use premises as elementary

schools which are not allowed to charge fees. There is an element of fiction about the matter. But these schools for which fees are chargeable stand in a different category from the others. That is the line which is drawn in this Bill. We are extending the exemptions over a very wide field, and I cannot advise the Committee to extend the principle any further.

Sir John Mellor: I can see some force in the Parliamentary Secretary's point, about the right to charge fees creating a distinction, but I should have thought that, in good sense and fairness, exemptions from rates might have been extended to direct-grant schools to an extent which would be related to the proportion of local children who were educated at the schools. I hope that, at least, that angle of the matter will be reconsidered by the Board of Education.

Mr. Ede: That would involve the rating authorities in an almost impossible task, because they would have to ascertain from year to year from which areas the children came, in order to assess the school. I cannot see a way of dealing with that point. I am aware, as I am sure other Members associated with rating authorities are aware, of the infinite complexity of this problem. I will see if there is some way by which we can have regard to the extent to which local provision is made by the school, but the matter is one of considerable difficulty, and I hope that my willingness to examine it will not be taken as a pledge to find a solution.

Captain Cobb: May I remind my hon. Friend that the effect of these schools being obliged to pay rates will simply be to increase their deficiency? Therefore, their deficiency grant will have to be increased, with the result that the Board of Education will be subsidising the local rates.

Sir J. Mellor: I am afraid I can hardly agree with the Parliamentary Secretary. There should be no great difficulty in deciding which children are within the area and which are outside the area of the school. It is simply a question of seeing where their home addresses are.

Mr. Lindsay: I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to try to find a way. He said there were a great many anomalies, and, if that is so, why not have another one? These schools are doing superb work and there is no question of their educational


value. You are getting some of the best educational work in the country, and if the Minister can find a way round it would be a great help.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 63.—(Endowments for maintenance of auxiliary schools.)

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 47, line 23, to leave out from "shall" to "be," in line 24.
I wish to move this Amendment in my name, and the two other Amendments which deal with the same matter—
In page 47, line 26, after 'any,' insert 'under this Act'"—
and—
in page 47, line 27, to leave out from 'school' to end of Clause, and add 'and in so far as the said sums are not required for that purpose they shall be paid to the local education authority and applied by the authority towards the expenses incurred by them in the maintenance of the school.'
The purpose of these Amendments is to deal with income from endowments in a different manner from that provided in the Bill. In the Bill, it is proposed that any surplus of income from the endowments which is used for the maintenance of the schools should be dealt with by way of schemes which will be made by the Minister after this part of the Act comes into operation. There is no indication what sort of scheme the Minister will make, or any details about it, and I feel that, if there is a surplus of income available, it should, first of all, be used for the benefit of the school, and, after that, towards the deficiency which the local authority is making up. I hope that we can get some explanation of what is in the Minister's mind in this Clause, because it is certainly not too clear. I would prefer that any surplus should be made available to the authority making up the deficiency. It is not a very simple matter, but I hope I have made it as clear as possible.

Mr. Ede: This Clause deals with the issue that is raised in Section 41 of the Education Act, 1921, which is, I think, almost unique among the Statutes of the country in allowing the benefactions of a pious founder to be used for the relief of the rates. The note in Owen's "Education Act Manual" runs to several pages,

and I think if my hon. Friend, who is probably better acquainted with the volume and knows his way about it rather better than I do, would re-read the paragraphs devoted to this question, he would come to the conclusion that, historically or constitutionally, Section 41 really is an abuse that ought to be wiped away. After all, men who, in the past, left money for the provision of education centred it on particular schools or particular parishes, would be very surprised to find that one of the things that arose out of the ecclesiastical bitternesses of the Act of 1902 was that their surplus moneys were deflected to the relief of rates. What my right hon. Friend proposes to do is—

Mr. Silkin: The Amendment does not suggest that it should go to the relief of rates but to the reduction of a deficiency.

Mr. Ede: If we reduce the deficiency until we reach the position hoped for by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) there will be no rates; every time you decrease the deficiency you decrease the charge on the rates.

Mr. Silkin: I was only referring to a particular school and not to the general rates. There is no objection to using it for the benefit of the school.

Mr. Ede: That it should be used for the benefit of a particular school might be one of the provisions of the scheme. These benefactions left in the past were closely related to particular educational enterprises, and it is very wrong, as has often been the case in various parts of the country, when these endowment; have been used for the reduction of the rates. We desire that surplus moneys shall be used for the benefit of the school, so that the individual desires of the testator shall, as far as possible, be carried out. There are various ways in which a certain amount of individuality and distinction can be given to a school by the use of small revenues of this kind, which make the school a far more individual and distinguished place to the pupils who attend it. I recollect that the elementary school to which I went, benefited by a benefaction which prescribed that the 12 children who attended most regularly should receive, every year, the sum of 4s. 1d.

Mr. Alexander Walkden: Did the hon. Member get that?

Mr. Ede: Thanks to the care that my parents took to secure my regular attendance, I secured it every year while I was there, as did also three other members of my family. There are many small endowments of that kind up and down the country which can be used in various ways to give to schools, what I always desire to see, a feeling of individuality. We ought not any longer to perpetuate this particular remnant of the controversies of 1902, but ought to see, as far as possible, that these endowments are used to give to individual schools opportunities for some forms of initiative and enterprise that can be secured by what are generally very small sums placed at their disposal.

Mr. Lindsey: Can my hon. Friend say whether that money could be used for employing a higher ratio of masters to pupils, or, in other words, to increase the staff?

Mr. Ede: That would depend on the way in which it was schemed. Twelve times 4s. 1d. per annum would give you a sort of 12th century schoolmaster income.

Mr. Lindsay: It is much more than 1d.

Mr. Ede: It would depend on the scheme.

Mr. Silkin: In view of the explanation and the assurance that the scheme will provide that the money shall be used for the benefit of the particular schools, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 64.—(Determination of disputes and questions.)

Mr. Butler: I beg to move, in page 47, line 35, to leave out from "Act," to end of Sub-section, and to insert:
may, notwithstanding any enactment rendering the exercise of the power or the performance of the duty contingent upon the opinion of the authority or of the managers or governors, be referred to the Minister; and any such dispute so referred shall be determined by him.
This relates to an undertaking I gave earlier in the Bill. In certain places in the

Bill various provisions have given a power or powers imposing a duty which is consequent on some body of persons forming an opinion, and this is particularly the case in some earlier Clauses. The advantage is that the Government has inserted this provision in order that the propriety of the action of some particular body of managers or governors based on an opinion can come within the discretion of the Minister.

Mr. Stokes: We are grateful to the Minister for having fulfilled the promise he gave earlier in the Bill. I understand that this covers the difficulties under Clause 23, and we are very much obliged.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir P. Hannon: I beg to move, in page 47, line 36, at the end, to insert:
Provided that when the foundation Managers or governors of any controlled school raise an objection with respect to the exercise by the local education authority of any power conferred or the performance of any duty imposed by or under this Act, the matter shall be determined by the Minister.
As my right hon. Friend the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham and Worthing (Earl Winterton) is not here, I beg to move this Amendment in his name. We aim to embody in this Bill some provision to operate in the case of a difference of opinion between a controlled school and the local education authority. I understand my right hon. Friend proposes to embody in subsequent stages of the Bill the objective in this Amendment, so I will content myself by simply moving the Amendment. I submit to my right hon. Friend that it is important in this Bill, that covers so wide a field in the sphere of education in this country, that we should as far as possible, in the event of a dispute arising, secure an adjustment of differences. In all these particular cases where the trouble arises between the governors and managers of an auxiliary school and the education authority there should be a right of appeal to the Minister of Education and that should be embodied in this Bill. I am sure it is the desire of the Committee that nothing should appear in this Bill that will not make smooth and easy the objective in the Bill. I understand the Minister will meet the objection that may arise from a dispute between the local authority and the governors or managers of an auxiliary school in later stages of the Bill.

Mr. Butler: I am sure my hon. Friend will not desire to press the Amendment if he will look at the Amendment on the Order Paper on page 782 dealing with Clause 103.

The Deputy-Chairman: Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw the Amendment?

Sir P. Hannon: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Stokes: I beg to move, in page 48, line 6, at the end, to add:
(5) Provided that, if so requested by the managers or governors of an auxiliary school, being a party to any dispute or question under Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (4) of this Section, the Minister shall, before determining that dispute or question, cause a local inquiry to be held in accordance with Section eighty-six of this Act.
The Clause provides for the determination by the Minister of a dispute between the local education authority and managers or governors of a school, or a dispute between the local education authorities. On questions where the alteration of premises of a county or auxiliary school would amount to the establishment of a new school, we submit that, from the point of view of the managers or governors of that school, the termination of any dispute between them and the educational authority, and any question of whether the alterations do or do not constitute the provision of a new school, is of such fundamental importance that it would be quite equitable for the governors or managers to have an inquiry if they were dissatisfied with the Minister's decision. It might be suggested that this is a one-sided proposal, and obviously if the Minister would agree that a local inquiry should be asked for on that account, it ought to be within the rights of the Minister, or the local education authority, to ask for an inquiry in the other direction. It is of the greatest importance to the governors of school's that the matter should be determined equitably. They feel that the question may be very ambiguous, and they seek the right, under Clause 86 perhaps, to ask for a local inquiry if they differ from the Minister's decision.

Sir P. Hannon: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that Clause 86 is sufficiently comprehensive to enable him to carry out these inquiries to the fullest

extent which would be essential in the case of a dispute arising? Is Clause 86 as full as he would like to have it, if he were to administer it?

Mr. Butler: I can perhaps relieve the Committee by saying that we do not wish to get as far as Clause 86 to-day, so we shall certainly be able to look at that in detail. However, I am advised, and I am sure myself, that Clause 86 includes quite sufficient power for the Minister to have a local inquiry for matters in dispute, but I hope that the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) will not press his Amendment, because I think it is of the essence of this matter that the Minister should reserve discretion, and that there should not be a prescriptive right given to the managers or governors of an auxiliary school to have a local inquiry. We prefer to leave the matter to the Minister to decide, on the basis of submission of the case to him. The Minister, otherwise, would tend to be rather weighted in favour of one side or the other. We, of course, always make inquiries as to the likely reception of these Amendments in certain quarters, and I can assure the hon. Member that he would be wiser not to press this one. By leaving the Bill as it stands, he still gets the discretion of the Minister to set on foot the machinery of the inquiry, and it would obviously be in the interests of the Minister to set on foot that inquiry if he were in doubt. On the other hand, if the hon. Member insists on this being put in, it may give encouragement to certain other people who have not quite the same views as he, and some of the auxiliary schools have, and therefore he 'would not be improving his case by making this particular insertion in the Bill. Therefore, if he would like to leave it to the discretion of the Minister and not insist on an Amendment—

Mr. Stokes: I would, of course, be quite satisfied if the Minister promised to be the Minister "for ever and ever, Amen."

Mr. Messer: He may promise, but can he keep it?

Mr. Stokes: No, he cannot, and this is important. However, I do not want to overstress my case. I stated our difficulty, and I hope the Minister will consider our problem and see if he can find any way to help us later. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Sir P. Hannon: I am sorry to intervene again. I am only going to ask my right hon. Friend whether Section 290 of the Local Government Act, referred to in Clause 86, limits him in any way in determining anything under this Clause?

Mr. Butler: When we examine Clause 86 we can give a full answer on that, but I am advised that Clause 86 as drafted would cover the sort of disputes which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 66.—(Registration of independent schools.)

Mr. Silkin: I beg to move, in page 49, line 8, to leave out, "or any class of independent schools."

The Deputy-Chairman: I think that in discussing this Amendment, we can also discuss the next four Amendments on the Order Paper.

Mr. Silkin: This Clause provides for the registration of independent schools, and Sub-section (2) states that if the Minister is satisfied that he has sufficient information in his possession, he may dispense with the requirement that any independent school, or any class of independent schools, should register and he may thereby exempt them and deem them to be registered. My Amendment leaves out the words, "any class of independent schools." I can understand the Minister saying that he has sufficient information about a particular school and that there is no need for it to register; that it should be exempt, and that he will put it on the register. But I cannot understand him saying this about any class of independent schools, nor do I understand what those words mean.

Mr. Ede: This Clause covers the recommendations of the Departmental Committee on Private Schools, and their proposal, in which they dealt in detail with the point raised by my hon. Friend, will indicate exactly what we have in mind in dealing with a class of independent schools. Paragraph 173 of their Report says:
There should be the following exemptions from registration requirements and compulsory inspection of schools, the schools exempted

being deemed to be registered schools: (a) any school in respect of which the Board of Education are satisfied that adequate information is available without inspection and that the requirements of the Statute and Regulations are fulfilled might be exempted by the Board at their discretion; (b) all schools recognised by the Board of Education as efficient secondary schools should be exempt.
There is a class of school, known as efficient secondary or preparatory schools. They are independent schools for the purpose of this Bill, which have been inspected by us, which we can inspect from time to time, and about which we have the fullest possible information. It would clearly be inappropriate if they were brought into the general requirements of registration in the way proposed in the Clause. Therefore, inasmuch as we know all about them, and are able to apply at once the required standards, it would be unnecessary to have them inspected a second time merely formally in order that they should be included in the registration. I hope that that explanation will satisfy my hon. Friend. Only those schools, or class of schools about which we have information, and which we can inspect, will be exempt.

Mr. Silkin: Will my hon. Friend explain what he means by classes of schools? He has applied himself to individual schools and I agree with him, but what are classes of schools?

Mr. Ede: If my hon. Friend wilt refer to paragraph 173 (b) of the Report he will see
All schools recognised by the Board of Education as efficient secondary schools.
That is a well-known class of school. There are certain preparatory schools which, similarly, have been inspected, and about which we have the fullest information on all these matters. That is the kind of class that we intend to exempt under the provisions of the Clause.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I find myself at a complete loss to understand my hon. Friend. The whole of his answer is directed to justifying the exemption of schools as to which the Board of Education are satisfied. They say it does not mean schools in the lump. It means that they are satisfied as to A, B, C, D, and so on. If the Board is satisfied, there is no quarrel. They are already covered. The Sub-section is quite clear. If the Minister is satisfied that he is in possession of sufficient information with respect to any


independent school, he can exempt it from registration. But everything the Parliamentary Secretary has said has been directed to proving that he has sufficient information to satisfy himself as to a school. What I cannot understand is why he will insist on the inclusion of the following words—"or any class of independent school." That means that you are going to take a group of them, something that exists under a public schools trust, or some category of school. That is the only meaning that can be given to it. Everything that the hon. Gentleman has said, is directed towards justifying the exclusion of particular schools. These words "any class of independent school" are, on the basis of the argument that he has put forward, completely otiose. They are not wanted. They have no meaning. I cannot understand why he does not accept the Amendment. It makes one wonder whether there is, behind these unnecessary words, some hidden meaning. Everything is provided in the words that go before, and then you get the addition of these words which are unwanted, yet my hon. Friend insists on keeping them in. I wonder why?

Mr. Ede: I regret that my hon. and learned Friend should have suspicions about me being influenced by some hidden hand. There is really nothing in it at all, except that, surely, it is a great administrative convenience to the schools themselves, instead of being compelled to have a list in the early stages in which every one is included individually by name, to say that all recognised efficient secondary schools will be regarded as coming within the words of this Clause. There is, surely, nothing hidden about that.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I quite accept that. Will not my hon. Friend take this back and reconsider it to see that the type that he has in mind is all that can be comprehended within the terms of the Clause, that is to say, the kind of schools the hon. Gentleman has now mentioned which have been inspected and approved and are the only schools that can come in as a class?

Mr. Ede: We now understand that there is nothing hidden behind this, and that this is not a way of exempting some public schools from having to register, but purely a matter of administrative machinery. We will, of course, examine the matter to see

if it is possible to get words that will more closely define the type of school that we have in mind under this provision. Here, again, I hope hon. Members will realise that this is an innovation in the law. We desire to bring it into effect as soon as possible. There are a large number of independent schools which are urgently in need of inspection, and we desire to limit the scope of our first inspection so that we shall be able to deal with those which most urgently call for it. If it is understood that we are now merely dealing with the question of machinery and that there is no suggestion that this is an effort to let unworthy people through, I am prepared to consider the matter between now and the further stages of the Bill.

Mr. Silkin: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is undertaking to make a closer definition of "classes of school."

Mr. Ede: I may even be able to accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment on mature thought.

Mr. Silkin: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will when he has time to think about it. On that understanding, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 67.—(Complaints.)

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I beg to move, in page 50 line 4, at the end, to insert:
(e) that the conditions of employment of the teachers are not satisfactory.
This Amendment deals with the conditions of employment of teachers in the independent schools. Anybody who has had experience of these schools will think of them in terms of schools which provide conditions of employment and effective teaching for the pupils that compare very favourably with those provided in council and county schools, but we cannot help but think of some independent schools which are a form of property. They are bought and sold and are regarded as an investment. They can attract pupils to them because they provide certain amenities at great expense which cannot be found in other schools or in schools provided out of public funds. An institution like that, which is run for profit, must keep down costs where it can. There are plenty of those that rely for their teaching staff on those who have fallen by the way in State education and perhaps in public


schools, and who have been caught up and employed by independent schools. The proprietors have the advantage of knowing that they cannot seek employment elsewhere.
They keep down the pay and conditions. As the teachers grow older, the pay and conditions get worse and worse. I cannot imagine that any teaching in such an institution, and at the hands of those who are compelled to submit to those conditions of employment, can be the best for the children who are there. If I had my way I would abolish them altogether.
Obviously, however, we are accepting them as a part of the education system of this country, and it is our duty to see that those who are foolish enough to send their children to those schools are provided with some kind of minimum safeguard. There are some safeguards and protection in that respect, but there is no safeguard at all for the standard of remuneration given to the teachers. If there were a standard of remuneration corresponding to the standard given in our county schools—in the sense in which this term is used in the Bill—there would be some guarantee that competent instruction would be given. I cannot understand why the Bill provides for standards of school premises, accommodation and instruction and cannot go further and secure standards of remuneration and conditions of employment for the teachers in these private schools, and that these matters should be the subject of inspection and investigation, something as to which the Board ought to be satisfied before approving a school.

Mr. Lindsay: I rise to say something which ought to be said at this moment. It does not fall to many of us to preside over a Departmental Committee and then to take part in the Debates on a Bill which puts the recommendations of that Committee into legislation. It must be a very peculiar sense of satisfaction to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. He did a very fine job on this work many years ago. Answering Questions in those days, I had, on at least five occasions, when it was asked when a Bill would be brought forward embodying the recommendation, to reply that the Government did not think it was quite the right moment to bring in comprehensive legislation on the matter. I congratulate him.
Do not let us run away with the idea that there are not going to be more independent schools. Their number is growing at the present moment. I hope the conditions in them are going to be looked into very carefully. Let us also remember that Bedales and many other famous schools would never have passed the test of this Bill in their early stages. I happened to come across a school rather like that the other day, where, apparently, the Board would not give recognition because the school had not a headmaster. There are ways of running a school without a headmaster. Lots of interesting things are being tried in the education world today. Nevertheless, we must see that the pay and conditions of the teachers are properly looked after.

Mr. Harvey: I would not have spoken had it not been for one sentence from the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. M. Hughes). I agree that the conditions of private schools should be subject to inspection by the Board and should be carefully kept under review, but it would be absolutely deplorable to education if independent schools were swept away altogether. They have been, in the past, the method by means of which new ideas have come into the education world, and in the provinces there are quite a number of remarkable cases in which pioneer work is being done in comparatively small independent schools. However good our national system may be, and I hope that it will be better and better as the years go on, it may still be enriched from time to time by new ideas and experiments that come into being in the first instance in the freedom of the independent schools. I hope, therefore, whatever happens, that we shall preserve this opportunity for free expression, under suitable conditions. We must safeguard the human rights of the staff, and of course the welfare of the children, but all that is possible while maintaining the liberty of experiments which these schools supply.

Mr. Ede: I should like, if I may, to thank the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) for the very kind personal words he used about me. It is a matter of some satisfaction to me that even if my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Moelwyn Hughes) finds my words in commending these Clauses to the Committee beyond his


understanding, at any rate I have been able to play my part in bringing this matter on to the Statute Book, because the revelations laid before my Committee were such as to convince us that a substantial number of children in this country are being most shamefully ill-treated in the matter of education in the worst of these independent schools. Other independent schools are among the best M the country. I do not, however, share the belief that some people hold that all valuable experiments have originated in those schools, because in the main, to carry on an experiment, considerable sums of money are required. That money has generally been found by the State, or the local authority, for the big experiments that have enriched us in the past. Some experiments have been carried on in these schools.
If I may direct my attention to the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend, the curious thing about the Departmental Committee was, that while we heard evidence, including evidence from teachers in these schools, we had no evidence from any one that conditions were bad. Each of us knew through his own personal experience that there are schools in which some of the conditions for the staff are very bad indeed. I do not think that we can be expected in this Bill to undertake the responsibility of saying what is an adequate salary to be paid to a person in one of these schools. We take on trouble enough when we endeavour to enforce the Burnham Committee's scales on local education authorities. To attempt to enforce some scales on private schools, where one would always be faced with the difficulty of bringing in the value of payment in kind in certain circumstances as part salary, would be to put on us a burden which we could not carry. If the conditions are such as to reduce the efficiency of this school as a place of instruction, that, of course, is one of the things that we shall have to take notice of.
Under paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) we have to ensure that efficient and suitable instruction is being provided. Where the conditions are such that they bring the education of the school, as my hon. and learned Friend quite rightly suggested they do on occasions, below an efficient level, we shall be able to take

action under that provision. Therefore, while at the moment I cannot accept the Amendment, I want to assure my hon. and learned Friend that I am concerned about some of the conditions, apart from salaries, which exist in some of these schools, and I will endeavour to find, if possible, some way in which that position can be met in the Bill. I cannot undertake to put in anything with regard to salaries, but where hours of duty and conditions under which duty is rendered, lower the efficiency of the school, I will endeavour to see if some words can be introduced to cover those particular conditions in the school.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: I am not altogether satisfied with the Parliamentary Secretary's answer, but I am glad that he has gone some way to meet the situation. I must reply to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for the English Universities (Mr. E. Harvey). He seemed to suggest that, because I wanted to abolish independent schools, I wanted to abolish experiment. Certainly not. As he knows, even better than I know, these experimental schools are only for those who have the money to send their children to them. I want to register my conviction that the field of experiment in education is open to local authorities and open to the State. That is the best possible solution that could be found, and it should be encouraged in both those directions. With that protest and that qualified acceptance of the Parliamentary Secretary's answer, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: This Clause provides that one of the matters on which the Minister must be satisfied is that the accommodation provided at the school is adequate and suitable. Many of these independent schools are residential. I should hazard the opinion that most are of the preparatory type, and that the main desideratum for a school of this kind is that it should be residential, because parents imagine that, since they are sending a child to a residential, instead of a local day school, the child will get a better education. It is upon that rock that most of these schools found themselves. If parents are foolish enough


to do so, and if we are authorising the Minister to inspect the accommodation of these schools, ought we not to carry it a stage further and make sure that the investigation shall also cover the boarding accommodation and the feeding that are provided? This Clause, as it stands, might well be interpreted as applying only to the accommodation provided for the children's education and whether the classrooms are all right. It might well be limited to the instructional end of the school. If the school is a residential one, the Clause should go further and deal with the whole of the accommodation. I ask for some assurance that the investigation will include the whole lay-out of the life of the school, not only just in the classroom, but the condition of his life in the building where he is.

Mr. Ede: There is no doubt, as far as boarding accommodation at the school is concerned, that it comes within the wording of the Clause, and my hon. Friend will recollect that we have taken powers in this Bill for the establishment by local authorities of boarding schools out of public funds, and for prescribing building regulations by the Board. These will obviously have to cover the standards to be set for the boarding part of the ordinary county and auxiliary schools. Therefore, there appears to be no doubt that in future, accommodation, even in the State system, will cover the question of boarding accommodation as well as the ordinary day school accommodation.
With regard to meals, I do not think that these words cover the position. The evidence, curiously enough, that was given to us was that some of the schools that were worst, from the educational point of view, were the best, from the feeding point of view. Apparently, it was thought that if you only fed the young animal enough, you would probably send him to sleep for same part of the afternoon and your education need not be too efficient. But there have been cases, undoubtedly, where proprietors of schools have been prosecuted by the National Society for

the Prevention of Cruelty to Children for giving children in these schools insufficient food. It was, in fact, a case which attracted considerable notoriety in 1930, which led to the appointment of the Departmental Committee. I am not clear that meals are covered. It is obviously only right that, in view of the effort we are making under Clause 47 to ensure proper feeding of the children in the State schools, we should see that these children also get the benefit of proper feeding. If it should be necessary to add words to ensure that the feeding arrangements in these schools come within the things that can be inspected, and if there is a deficiency found which calls for remedy, I will endeavour to include suitable words.

Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clauses 68 to 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered:
That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Mr. Drewe.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon the next Sitting Day.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 5932, to the Urban District of Budleigh Salterton, a copy of which Order was presented to this House on 21st March, be approved."—[Mr. Drewe.]

Resolved:
That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Parish of Wooler in the Rural District of Glendale, a copy of which Order was presented to this House on 21st March, be approved."—[Mr. Drewe.]

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Drewe.]